Covid Through a Pathologists Eye: Ryan Cole on DarkHorse
Bret Speaks with Ryan Cole about his role as a Covid dissident over the last 4 years, and his unique viewpoint as a pathologist.Find Ryan Cole on X: @drcole12 (https://twitter.com/drcole12)*****Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com/Check out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://www.darkhorsestore.org/...
I am thrilled to have in studio today, Dr. Ryan Cole.
Ryan Cole is a board-certified pathologist, Mayo Clinic trained, and he is here live in person, though he doesn't live locally.
You live in Idaho.
I do.
Which is an exciting place.
Now, I will just say, many of our viewers will be familiar with you.
You are a renowned COVID dissident.
And I have wanted to have you on the podcast forever I have been learning things from you since the first time I ever saw a video of you talking about vitamin D And I've seen many videos of you that alerted me to things I didn't know and you and I have had many conversations in person all kinds of different venues and Anyway, I find you fascinating and I find your perspective especially clear-headed so you have been
At the top of my list of guests, and something about the distance that you live means that in theory, doing it in person is always a possibility, but it's not simple, and so it hasn't happened to this day.
But in any case, I wish it had, but I'm thrilled that you're here.
Well, I'm thrilled to be here, and it was worth the drive over, and just the natural beauty one gets to see here in the Northwest.
So, absolutely thrilled.
Well, I'm glad it has worked out so far.
You'd be singing a different tune if your ferry had gotten canceled.
Good point.
But in any case, great to have you here.
Let's just lay out some basics.
I mean, one of the things that I especially appreciate about you, and it took me a while to figure out, is that you are a true Renaissance man.
You're not just a great doctor, which is saying something.
In my opinion, most doctors have revealed themselves to be phonies and you are a very real doctor, but you're also a woodworker and an avid fisherman and a musician and in fact somebody who makes musical instruments.
And I don't know how many of your various hobbies I haven't mentioned.
Anything else that- Organic farmer, which is something, yeah, that would be a full-time job for most people, but it's only one facet of your life.
You are also the father of six daughters, is it?
Correct.
Alright, that is a very improbable story, but somehow you've produced six daughters in a row.
You are happily married to a lovely woman who I've now met in person a couple times.
And so, anyway, from the point of view of our audience understanding who you are, you are somebody who brings a deep philosophical understanding of the world, a lot of experience with people and physical systems that are unforgiving.
Physical systems like woodworking and farming and all, where if you do it wrong, it doesn't work.
Correct.
So, in terms of your training as a doctor, you've been a pathologist, you trained to be a pathologist.
I did.
And from the point of view of being a COVID dissident, a pathologist is a very interesting position to come at that from because, and you tell me what I have wrong here.
For those, you want to describe what a pathologist does?
Certainly, and some of the older generation will remember Quincy and just autopsies and that's what they think of in the realm of pathology.
But I like to joke, the pathologist is the most important doctor that you never meet, that you always hope is right.
The day-to-day of a pathologist and my fellowship, so I did anatomic pathology, jokingly in pathology, we say there's either meat or juice.
So it's either tissue or fluid products of the body.
A surgical pathologist, that's what my fellowship at Mayo, my final year there, was surgical pathology.
You would get specimens from the surgical rooms and you get tissue, you look at the cell patterns and diagnose cancer, not cancer, inflammatory condition, infectious condition.
And then in the other side of the laboratory, we do all of the blood work.
We do the microbiology, the culturing, the DNA analysis of microbes.
We do women's health.
We do pap smears.
We do the gamut.
It's when you go to your doctor and say, well, send it off to the lab.
What most people don't realize, that black box of the lab is a highly trained team of professionals.
A pathologist generally has several years more training.
I think maybe a neurosurgeon has more years of training than a pathologist does.
But we're kind of the support staff behind the scenes.
Most action doesn't happen on the A lot of doctors will make just an empiric decision based on clinical presentation, but if you want evidence and informational data points, that's what the pathologist provides.
And so my subspecialty, beyond just doing surgical specimens and whatnot, is also looking at melanoma and skin cancer.
That's one of my areas of subspecialty expertise.
I also did Ph.D.
work in immunology and virology, looking at dendritic cells, prior to my first daughter coming along and deciding I didn't need to be a doctor doctor.
So, I pulled out of my Ph.D.
track after my first year because I had to make a living and feed a family.
So, that's the overview.
And pathology is the quality control of medicine.
So if something's going wrong, or if there's a new pattern, we as pathologists, we're pattern recognizers.
And thousands upon thousands of patterns, you commit to memory, and then you look for the aberrancy in pattern.
And once you see that little red flag, that's when you go look further.
So we take generally a good pathologist will take that 40,000 foot point of view flying over.
OK, is that a boreal forest?
Is it a coniferous forest, etc.?
And when you see something wrong with the forest, now you fly down closely and look at the individual trees.
So the reason that this makes you such a unique person amongst the dissident doctors is that most doctors, and again you just correct anything that I've got wrong, but most doctors have A relatively small number of patients that they're interacting with.
A pathologist, because they're receiving samples from a huge number of offices, are in a position to understand a change in health over a larger population.
And so, you know, you have been first, as far as I know, in spotting many of the patterns that later went on to be widely discussed, because you were looking at presumably thousands of different patients, patients that you hadn't met, but had samples come your way.
And you detected, for example, a radical uptick in the amount of cancer you were seeing, the aggressiveness of cancers.
And so anyway, I heard you say that long before the idea of turbo cancer was being discussed.
Now it is of course commonly discussed.
This episode is sponsored by Moink.
That's moo plus oink.
Moink is a meat subscription company on a mission to save the family farm.
Moink's animals are raised humanely, their employees are paid a living wage, and the quality of their products is better than anything you'll find in a store.
Founded by an eighth-generation farmer in rural America, Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon directly to your door.
We love everything about Moink.
The fact that the meat is grass-fed and finished on small farms, and the meat itself, pork, beef, lamb, chicken, is all completely delicious.
Consider treating yourself, or someone else, to some truly fabulous meat.
It's grown humanely and with care, and it's fantastic for you.
Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did, and as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should.
Because the family farm does it better, and the Moink difference is a difference you can taste.
Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food.
You choose the meat delivered in every box.
From ribeyes to chicken breasts to pork chops to salmon fillets, it's all fantastic.
Plus, you can cancel any time.
The best bacon, best steak, best chicken, best salmon you'll ever eat won't come from a grocery store.
You'll only get it from family farms and independent Alaskan fishermen.
And now you can, when you join the Moink Movement today.
Keep American farming going by signing up at moinkbox.com slash darkhorse right now.
And listeners of this show get free ground beef for a year.
That's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste, but for a limited time.
Spelled M-O-I-N-K box dot com slash Dark Horse.
That's Moinkbox dot com slash Dark Horse.
As a pathologist, you just you're a doctor who has an unusually large sample size in which to detect patterns.
Correct.
And I'll get criticized by many and they'll say, well, that's just anecdotal.
I confess it's anecdotal.
But when my biopsy volume The year before the pandemic started was 40,000 biopsies.
That's a lot of biopsies.
Yeah.
And so you get statistical power from a data set like that.
And not only the cancer issue, but even during 2020 when the virus was spreading, I noticed the clotting patterns.
I noticed immune suppression patterns.
I noticed white blood cell counts shifting and going down in terms of T cells.
Then after the rollout of the genetic injections, then I did see those additional cellular patterns, especially upticks in certain types of cancer, and not just the increase in the cancers, but the aggressiveness.
So under the microscope, we're also looking at how many cells are in mitosis.
What's the division rate within a tumor?
What's the appearance of a cell compared to, because certain cancers are just maybe a degree or two off of what a normal cell looks like, based on the number of mutations they've accumulated.
But certain cells look like angry beasts in terms of being multiple degrees apart from what the original cell is.
So I can fill this in a little bit since some of my graduate work centered on cancer.
Each cancer is effectively a unique evolutionary event.
You have some set of mutations that sets a cell line in motion where it is no longer regulated in terms of how much division it does.
For long-time viewers of the podcast, they will know I tried to coin a term, prototumor, Unregulated cells that ran up against their hayflick limit and stopped reproducing.
Moles, we now know, are this.
But once they become dysregulated from that reined-in state and they just become an ever-growing mass, it is also true that there is selection inside of each mass and whatever it is that makes a cell grow faster than its neighbor Then comes to dominate the tumor as it grows.
And so you get this pattern where you get more and more mutations, a greater deviation from whatever the normal cellular pattern is.
And of course, as far as we know, in almost all of these cases, this evolutionary trend is a dead end.
Cancers are mostly not contagious.
There are some famous exceptions.
My guess is we will find more exceptions.
As we learn more about the topic, but each one of these you get a pattern.
The farther into having a tumor you are, the more likely it is that there are many mutations in the mass and that it has wildly deviated from whatever the ancestral cell strain was.
And what I find fascinating about this is Much of medicine, and this goes to bigger picture and to the work that you've done, when a patient is treated for a certain type of cancer, you'll get this excitement within the treating group and whatnot.
Oh, look, this tumor has shrunk by 30, 40%.
But you're absolutely right in the sense that most cancers are a hydra.
So you've treated it with X chemotherapy or X therapy, and look, the tumor is shrinking.
But what's negated or not understood by a lot of practicing clinicians is the fact that there's six more cancers within that cancer.
And the more primordial that cancer or the more mutations are accumulated, then great, you shrunk the tumor by 30 or 40 percent, but now you're treating a different dragon.
Well, and I will hypothesize that, in essence, you have killed the 30 or 40 percent that was easiest to kill, and so the point is it's an accelerating pattern of difficulty.
It's a diminishing returns problem.
And that's what we see in terms of the behavior of these types of tumors.
Which also goes back to, and I've been studying this more recently, is the metabolic hit theory of cancer versus the genetic hit.
And how much of cancer is actually regulated by the mitochondria.
Part of my undergraduate honors thesis was looking at open reading frames on different mitochondrial species, more for mapping them genetically, phylogenetically.
But the fact that the mitochondria also has its own genome, And if the mitochondria are damaged, that affects cell cycle pathways, which can cause cellular hits within the nuclear DNA because of reactive oxygen species, etc., etc.
So defective mitochondria can trigger the nuclear genome, the cell's inner genome, To have different reactions.
In other words, because it's a feedback, having defective mitochondria might cause a non-mutant nuclear genome to behave in a dysregulated way.
Is that what you're saying?
Right.
And then most cancers, and this plays sway with certain types of cancers and population level assessment of cancer, Obviously here in North America, we're a metabolically unwell nation.
And if you treat cancer more from a metabolic point of view or assess cancer from a metabolic point of view, focusing more on most cancers are fermenters.
They need glucose.
And so if you approach cancer, and I've delved into the research of Dr. Thomas Seyfried out of Boston, Boston College, and his metabolic approach to cancer is fascinating.
There are certain types of cancer where there's a unique genetic translocation, the Philadelphia chromosome and one of the leukemias, things like that, where it's just a gene rearrangement.
But the majority of other cancers, Don't have that cohesive break at any one point.
But at the end of all of it, they all have a common need, and that's to divide.
In order to divide, you need energy.
In order for energy to be produced, you have to have functional mitochondria.
If you have dysfunctional mitochondria, then your cell cycle pathways aren't going to work correctly.
So, cancers love glucose.
Cancers also will utilize glutamine, the amino acid glutamine, which we naturally produce.
Our body makes it, so it's not an essential amino acid.
So, it's interesting to Look beyond just the traditional constructs in medicine.
And in medicine, we joke that medicine advances when the previous generation passes away.
Oh, we have the same joke in science.
Science progresses one funeral by funeral.
Yes.
Yeah, basically true.
And so, so much of what we understand, even one of the fathers of modern medicine or American medicine, Osler, said to his students way back in the day, When he would welcome students, half of what you learn today will be wrong.
We just don't know what you have.
And that's the challenge of even modern medicine and the hubris of thinking we know everything.
I think the most important part of being a good physician, being Yeah.
Alright, I want to go back to a couple things.
One, you said that you admit that what you're seeing is anecdote.
I actually don't agree with you.
Well, there's data sets accumulating now.
But even absent that.
I know because what I study is complex systems and I know that a lot of what I study, you know, can be me walking a trail in a forest and noticing a pattern and then trying to figure out what it means.
But I also know that there is an informal analog to a science experiment, right?
See a pattern and I come up with a hypothesis about what generates it then the next mile that I walk is a test of that hypothesis, right?
If the pattern is broken, then the hypothesis was incorrect.
If the pattern is manifest in that next patch of forest, the hypothesis lives, right?
And so the point is The only reason science works is because you're doing a, you are moving through a series of steps and if you do it in the right order and you are careful not to fool yourself about whether or not a expectation, a prediction has been met, it functions irrespective of how formal it is.
When we present it in a formal paper it looks like Some sort of ancient ritual, but the fact that you as a pathologist, there must have been some day during COVID in which you thought to yourself, and I don't mean just during COVID, but after the mRNA vaccine campaign began, there must have been some day on which you first said to yourself, are these things causing cancers?
Yeah, and it's interesting because it wasn't cancer first that I noticed.
It was a change in a viral pattern.
So, I do a fair amount of skin pathology, so receiving skin biopsies from dermatologists and family docs and internists, OBGYNs, a lot of people that do biopsies.
There's a little bump we get in childhood from a parapox virus called molluscum contagiosum.
And it tends to be a little white raised bump with maybe a little volcano dell in the middle of it.
And children will get that.
Generally, by the early teens, you don't see it a whole lot.
After the rollout of the injections, and I have an astute colleague, a young associate who now runs the laboratory and I consulted to him, but he and I were noticing progressively because of the age rollout, the way these shots happened, that we were seeing this little bump, this little viral bump in 70 year olds and 60 year olds and 50 year olds.
The alarm bells went off and I thought, Well, we've lost immune surveillance and regulation of something that the body keeps in check for a lifetime.
Yeah.
Once you're exposed, you have, and we'll maybe get into this later, but antibodies aren't the be-all end-all of immunity.
We forget about the most critical Part of our immune system is the innate, the immediate, not that adaptive antibody response.
So this innate immune system, these T cells that would keep T cell memory and say, hey, there's that little virus.
Remember that from childhood?
Oh, yeah.
Let's just kill off those little cells that are trying to proliferate.
And it's called molescum contagiosum for a reason.
It's very contagious.
But once you've developed immunity, Then your body recognizes it.
So I noticed that first and multiple fold increase in this.
I maybe see one every couple of years in an older patient and that's an immune suppressed patient of some sort.
No problem.
That's a little blip in a pattern happens every now and then.
Yeah.
But when you see one a year in an elderly patient and then all of a sudden you see 40 out of 40,000.
Yeah.
Well, something's different.
Then the same thing started happening in certain types of cancer.
So I did a fair amount of women's health biopsies and I started noticing endometrial cancers.
I would usually get one endometrial cancer every month or two.
And it wasn't just the cancer, but you have the proto-cancer.
Yeah.
So these atypical proliferative patterns, and as many will know by now, after the shots rolled out, a lot of women had menstrual disorders and problems and change in the length of menses, the length of onset or delayed, et cetera, et cetera.
So I started noticing those proliferative patterns in addition to, gosh, we're seeing one or two cancers or three cancers a month instead of one every month or two.
And then one month, it was four or five in a month.
And that's when the alarm bells went off.
But then the same thing also happened in melanoma, confirmed by one of the world's leading cancer researchers in the UK, Dr. Angus DeGleish, over in the UK.
He and I had dinner when I was over there.
He notices melanoma patients that had been in remission or were doing fine, took off like wildfire.
I saw that same thing under the microscope.
So, I saw a change in pattern.
You saw a change in pattern.
Walking along that forest trail all of a sudden.
You saw a change in pattern.
And I've been walking that trail for 500,000 patients in my career.
Right.
So, you've got a well-established sentence.
You know, I'm sure that anomalies every so often pop up at some rate and then you think, is that something?
And then you don't see the anomaly continue and it's like, okay, well that wasn't a real pattern.
That was sampling error.
But once you have noticed the pattern and you've consciously said to yourself, why am I seeing a radical increase in the number of aggressive melanomas?
Then the point is, well, either that pattern is going to dissipate and the answer will be it was sampling error.
Or, the pattern will continue, and my point is, that is a hypothesis test, and it functions exactly the way a formal hypothesis test works, as long as you keep proper mental track, and you don't find reason to discount things that would disconfirm your hypothesis.
Sure, and this is the important part in pathology, just to tangent real quickly.
As a pathologist, as a well-trained pathologist, I had wonderful mentors at the Mayo Clinic that taught me this methodology.
Don't ask for demographics.
Don't ask for history.
And I did a lot of clinical medicine.
I did four years of emergency medicine, family medicine, dermatology clinics.
I have a lot of clinical experience, too.
And so, I'm a pathologist that thinks like a clinician.
So, oftentimes you may want that background and that history on the patient.
To help guide your thinking my mentors whenever well one in particular and he's actually probably retired by now, but He was the chair of anatomic pathology at Mayo went on to Michigan and I do believe he's retired But he said don't tell me anything.
I want the cells to speak Yeah, this makes perfect sense, and in fact that is the analog for, and there's a lot to be said about the failure of the blinding of trials that claim to be blind, but that is you blinding yourself to information that might cause you to look more aggressively for something.
Whereas what you really want is, what is taking place here?
For example, you wouldn't want to discount the pattern of whatever the virus that you mentioned was, because it was showing up in people who were too old to be catching it.
Right.
I just make the diagnosis, and then after the diagnosis is made, and you've maybe heard me say, and many people now have heard me say, the cells don't lie.
Yeah.
Many people bring their biases to any decision in life.
That's life.
That's who we are as humans.
I don't want to bring any bias to that.
I remember years ago, horrendous melanoma, and I'm looking at the cells and just staging and grading it.
And then I look at the demographic and realized it was in a three-year-old.
And then I call a clinician and say, um, what's good?
And then he sent me a clinical image.
And wow.
But that's the kind of thing, if you can be objective, Don't bring your biases to that microscope with the cells speak let the pattern speak and then go back and put the puzzle pieces together Right, but from the point of view of somebody like me on the outside not a physician trying to figure out what the hell is going on I hear a guy like you get up to a microphone and
Say with confidence that you are seeing a pattern that I have not heard other people describing my sense is well either This is an unreliable person because they don't have a rigorous method or this is a reliable person in which case that confidence is born of the fact that this is a rigorous thinker looking at a pattern Who doesn't matter what other people say about it.
I saw the pattern and then once I had noted the pattern it continued to exist in the samples I saw thereafter and that is alarming because my long history tells me that is a departure from where we have been.
And I'm not out there to say I'm right or wrong.
I'm there to say, I see a pattern change.
Now it's up to others to say, well, that's an interesting hypothesis.
Am I seeing the same pattern?
Right.
And there were others that started seeing the pattern.
People in a German working group.
And then that phrase, turbo cancer, that you brought up.
It's not a medical term.
You know, people criticize us all that.
No such thing as turbo cancer.
Peter Marks in the hearing in Congress a couple of weeks ago.
Oh, it doesn't exist.
But a change in behavior of cancers has happened.
And Dr. Uta Kruger, she's a breast pathologist out of Sweden, she was the one that coined that term in a paper she wrote because she'd been similar to me in pathology for many decades.
She knew the patterns she would see.
And interestingly, mid-21, after the rollout of genetic-based synthetic RNA injections, all of a sudden her cancer patients were appearing with much larger tumors, more aggressive tumors.
And again, she's in her silo.
I'm on this side of the globe on my silo.
One of the chances.
One of the chances.
Yeah.
Right, right.
Okay, and that's interesting.
And also, I remember, I can't remember where I saw you talk about it, but I saw somewhere you talked about numerous clotting anomalies, blood consistency anomalies, if I remember correctly, which then later show up in the discussions that were started by morticians who were raising the alarm over patterns that somehow allopathic medicine
To this day, I think, is pretending are either non-existent, mysterious, or the result of some other pathway, COVID itself, perhaps.
Yeah.
So anyway, okay, you as an individual are capable of doing science on a large data set that comes through your desk.
Yes, there will be sampling error, as there is when we build a study.
But nonetheless, your alarm is raised by seeing a pattern of pathology that has changed substantially in a bad direction.
Some other pathologist spots the same thing.
Now we've got a mystery, which is, okay, most pathologists have said nothing.
Which has been shocking to me.
And early on, I was in a couple of message groups, and there was a pathologist down in Texas.
His subspecialty area was biopsies of the GI tract.
And during COVID, he noticed an increase in microclots in the small vessels.
After the rollout of the shots, he noticed an increase beyond what he was seeing during COVID.
Now that spike protein in and of itself has multiple pathways to cause clotting.
Yeah.
And COVID itself caused a lot of inflammation of the lining of the blood vessels and endotheliitis, inflammation of the lining of the vessels.
That spike protein is amongst the primary agents that causes that, which then induces all these clotting cascades and whatnot.
Now, because it's a new protein, Most likely lab-created, as we know and understand at this point.
The behavior of that protein, the ability for it to fold in unusual ways, the ability to bind to different receptors that we have on our blood vessel lining, on our red cells, on our platelets, on our white cells, It had the magic ability to induce all of those.
Dr. Reza Pretorius out of South Africa has done fantastic work on this.
Has Dr. Kell out of the UK.
Dr. Jordan Vaughn out of Alabama.
And we've realized that these clotting pathways are real.
And they're little clots that form called microamyloid, which is basically a congealing, a folding and congealing of proteins.
Now you and I, if we scrape our knee, obviously we want to clot.
And once that clot is to a point where the body says, okay, we've Walled off the area.
Eventually, we want to break a clot down.
And we have enzymes in our body to do that and break down the fibrin products, etc., etc.
These are unusual in the sense that this folded protein isn't breaking down.
This is what the morticians were starting to notice.
Now, to forgive some of the pathologists, when we do an autopsy, again, that's not part of my regular practice.
I'll review cases, but... Yeah.
But we generally don't go into all the vessels of the body.
We're not preparing the body for burial.
So when they're pumping the blood out of the body, this is when the morticians... And they're finding a plumbing obstruction.
Right.
And they have to remove it in order to embalm.
And so they're discovering... I wish I'd brought a jar of... Many people have seen these online.
I wish I'd brought a couple of them with me.
But yeah, these are unusual clots in the sense that, yes, do they have normal blood products?
Do they have trapped red cells, white cells, lots of proteins, glycoproteins, sugar proteins?
They do.
But they are elastic and firm and rubbery.
When I would do an autopsy, if you would pull, say, a pulmonary embolus out of someone that passed from a pulmonary embolus, it's more gelatinous or jelly-like.
Unfortunately, in pathology, we use food descriptors all the time.
You generally don't want to go to dinner with a pathologist.
I happen to know that nobody who listens to this podcast is doing so while eating, so you're fine.
But most clots are jelly-like.
And again, carotid and arterectomies, we would get these where you have a blockage of the carotid artery.
We would get these in surgical pathology at Mayo.
And they have a thickness to them, but they have a consistency.
And what we noticed, again, this goes to your observation about a hypothesis and a change in pattern.
We saw a change in pattern.
And these are unusual in that regard.
So, they're unusual.
I, of course, have learned something new from you here that the basic point is a normal clot has a gelatinous consistency in at least part because it's a reversible process.
Correct.
Right?
In this case, you have a non-reversible process, not biologically reversible.
There is, of course, the question about whether something is forming post-mortem or whether these things are forming in life and actually killing a number of these patients.
They are, and I have multiple that I've examined, and I have images in some of my presentations of these.
Internist walking by his emergency room happened to thankfully collapse right there and They pulled out a huge saddle embolus.
That's that's where your Circulation that's coming off your heart going into your lungs where you oxygenate your blood huge embolus But it had this thick firm consistency.
So this had been building over time.
It wasn't one of these thrown from the leg block it Tada gone.
Yeah Similar one from a pilot and then there are a couple of others now you can see online being pulled in vascular surgeries.
Is this happening to everybody?
No.
And so a lot of what I've observed, I don't want to panic people, of individuals that have received these injections, the majority of people seem to be okay.
Okay, but here's a question.
Yeah.
Again, naive, non-physician question.
I've looked at these clots.
I've looked at them physically.
I've looked at lots of descriptions and videos online where people demonstrate their consistency.
That ought to show up on an MRI easily.
Well, more on your Doppler scans.
Here's the challenge.
The ones that get all the media and the attention are the large ones.
Yeah.
I think a lot of what we're seeing post-genetic injection injury is these micro-accumulations within smaller vessels.
of this thick material.
But that ought to create an awful lot of pathology as these things move.
It does.
Hypoxia is horrible for any organ in the body.
So again, I don't want to interrupt you, but I don't understand why Doctors in the process of addressing mysterious pathologies in patients that walk through their door.
Doctors are presumably ordering scans as they always have and those scans are presumably revealing these things at any size and explaining why some organ is not receiving circulation in the way you would expect.
Where is the pattern of those doctors doing what you do and saying, actually, you know what?
I don't see this pathology very often, or at least I didn't until 2021, and now I am seeing it.
Anybody else?
Why is that process not happening?
Well, I blame it on consolidation of systems.
So big picture, you look at what's happened to medicine over the last 20-30 years as certain, I don't want to get too political, but as certain structural changes have happened in healthcare, the majority of doctors aren't independent anymore.
The majority are within a system.
As I've gone to meetings around the world, and I've been doing this for three years, I think the only person with more miles in this Dr. Freedom movement than I is probably Dr. Malone, good friend.
But we travel a lot.
And so we talk to a lot of doctors.
And early on, I talked to, well, I still do, radiologists and interventional radiologists.
And they said, we're seeing it.
Keep speaking up.
We're seeing it.
Like, well, why don't you speak out?
That is maddening.
Oh, it's exceedingly maddening.
This is what I hear more often than not.
Thanks for saying what you're saying.
I wish I could say it.
But I would lose my job and it would threaten my career.
And I say to them, guess what?
You can say it.
And I did lose my career.
But if one's going to be true to the truth in science and not willfully ignorant or living in fear, all of this would have been over long ago if people had overcome that construct of fear.
Oncologists around the world, yes, I'm seeing an uptick of cancers in young patients.
Radiologists, yes, I'm seeing unusual clots that I have to go intervene with, you know, thrombectomies, etc.
Yeah.
And to your point, it's not that it's not happening.
But to really gather those data sets, if people are going to stay silent, then what do you do?
Well, ironically, it is exactly the same game-theoretic failure that was used to demonize those who were hesitant over the so-called vaccines, right?
What we have is a tragedy of the commons, right?
It's a collective action problem.
If all the doctors who are seeing this, all the radiologists and all the clinicians who are seeing the pattern, Were to stand up and say I'm seeing something new.
I can't be certain of what it is Here's my hypothesis based on blah blah blah Then there's nothing that anybody could do to all of them.
It is the fact that it is only you know the The penguin who jumps in that ends up facing the leopard seal that results in the appearance that there must not be a pattern and that those who have spoken up about a pattern must be mistaken at best or lying or something.
And that collective action problem is resulting in how many people dying because they have no idea that we do have a novel a novel pattern of disease that that disease I mean All you have to do is get those doctors to say, we're seeing a pattern.
It might be the vaccines.
Is that a hard question to test scientifically?
Oh, no.
No, that's a very simple pattern to test, right?
You can just simply compare two groups of similar patients, some of whom were vaccinated, others who were not, and you can detect that.
We could settle this very easily.
And if we settle it, then the answer is, well, okay.
If you got these shots, maybe there's some pattern of scanning that we need to engage in to see whether you have one of these things developing, right?
There's an obvious outgrowth of this that would be life-saving.
Absolutely.
That we can't reach.
Right.
And that willful blindness, the collective lack of curiosity, perhaps?
I don't know.
Has led to more tragedy than we should have seen.
And even using an historical example, how many people were revolutionaries when we departed from the United Kingdom and had our Revolutionary War?
A small percentage.
It just took that small percentage to start a revolution.
And even when we won the Revolutionary War and declared our independence, the majority of the colonists were still loyal to the crown.
But to your point, it just takes a small vocal minority to bring something to the forefront.
I was flying to D.C.
where you and I were a week and a half ago, and as I'm checking in to check one of my bags, the gate agent, wait, you're Dr. Cole?
I'm like, yeah.
She's like, oh, thank you.
I fought, I fought, I fought.
I didn't get the shot, and I tried to get my colleagues to speak up, and that was during this whole mandate fiasco disaster.
She thanked me.
She fought, but she couldn't get her colleagues to jump on board with her.
And again, to your point of the tragedy of the commons, had we had more people engage and just say, I'm going to be part of the solution.
And we have this problem of comfort and safetyism in our mindset within.
Again, you know, biological systems, the complexities.
Adversity is what strengthens species.
And if we are not willing to face adversity, the looking bigger philosophical picture here, then how do we improve society?
How do we improve as individuals?
How do we improve as thinkers?
If we're not willing to sandpaper our neurons a little bit and stimulate thought and say, wait, what if I'm wrong?
Or what if something's different?
Say something.
And this unwillingness to be wrong, or I have to be in my safety and comfort zone, I don't believe in conclusions in science, I believe in current understanding.
Because once you conclude, over and done.
So, we conclude, safe and effective, over and done.
No!
Our current understanding is this.
But if something changes, then we have to shift with our current understandings.
Both scientifically, and societally and philosophically.
Well, I would say it's even worse than that.
If we, all of the folks who are telling themselves, I can't stand up because I know what will happen.
Well, they're not wrong if they stand up alone, but they are incorrect in not gathering into a critical mass of people saying, yeah, I'm seeing the same pattern.
But I think they are all making the same mistake, which is imagining that the force that did this is in the past.
This was an anomaly.
And the fact is they're not done with us.
This was a test case.
This was a test case.
They still have their mRNA platform, which they are hell bent on using to generate at the very least huge profits by reformulating every vaccine under the sun and generating tons of new products.
And they would love it to, they really want us to blame the spike protein.
And as bad as the spike protein is, the platform itself is dangerous.
This is what needs to be stopped.
And I agree with your assessment.
It's not a test case.
If you go back to October 29th, 2019, the Milken Institute and Fauci and Rick Bright are on a panel and they're bemoaning the historical pattern of developing vaccines and eggs and well gosh if and Rick Bright says well say if we had a novel respiratory virus out of China
We could just download an RNA sequence and rapidly and Fauci says you know it can be disruptive and iterative and yeah and they were gung-ho and ready to go with this new platform.
Historically, if you look at Moderna, they never safely brought a product to market prior to the pandemic.
Yep.
Still haven't.
Still haven't.
Good point.
Borla, in an interview with the Washington Post, basically said, look, yeah, I said to my scientists, wait, why are we doing this?
It's because what we're doing.
They had no experience doing mRNA technology.
So, you know, this is much of the history you've already told on other shows.
But that lipid nanoparticle goes everywhere.
There was a lecture just a week ago.
I do a call every week with doctors from all around the country and the world and researchers.
And Moderna and Pfizer are in this lecture in 2024 saying, well, we need to further understand how lipid nanoparticles work and what their shape ends up being and how they act.
I'm like, wait, after we've put this into billions of people, you're giving a lecture saying that you as the manufacturers don't understand lipid nanoparticles.
And then on top of that, the study that came out of Oxford and Cambridge showing that this N1 methyl pseudouridine, which is not natural, it's a synthetic uridine that these shots use, causes slippage.
Meaning, you and I are sending messages right now.
I try to educate the patient, look, I need more muscle, I need more bone, I need more cartilage, I need some proteins for digestion, etc., etc.
All day long, your nucleus is sending out little messages to the cell and saying, okay, here's the message, go to the ribosome, make this much protein, okay, feedback loop, that's enough, turn off.
With this pseudouridine, It doesn't degrade as easily.
So Dr. Roltgen out of Stanford, they showed that it was persisting at least 60 days.
A normal message goes away in minutes to hours.
Yeah.
And in addition, when, when a mess, it's like those decoder rings when we were kids.
And so click, click, click message, amino acid, bunch of amino acids, protein.
Well, if you slip the wrong direction, you're going to get the wrong code.
You're going to make the wrong amino acid.
You're going to make the wrong protein.
So that's what this mRNA is doing.
Three years into it, the study comes out saying, oh gosh, it looks like we're making different proteins than what the program code says we're supposed to be making.
So then you think about all the autoimmune diseases.
You think of the cancer pathways that can be triggered.
Again, biological systems, as you say all the time, are complex.
And you put one input into that feedback loop that's a wrong input, and it can have a disastrous consequence.
Especially if you've loaded it up so it does not degrade normally.
Absolutely.
And that's to your point.
Absolutely.
This platform has to be stopped.
It hasn't been proven.
And then to address what came up last night in the State of the Union.
Oh, and now we can use this technology for cancer.
Well, The lipid nanoparticle goes everywhere.
These aren't targeted yet.
You can't say, okay, here's a lock and key.
We can take this lipid nanoparticle and it's only going to unfold its content once it arrives at this organ or this cell.
These are ubiquitously distributed throughout the body with a concentration in the gonads, the ovaries, bone marrow, which is critical to life function.
So, the epistemic hubris in science is horrific at this point.
It's apocalyptic.
And the fact, you know, the hubris that allowed it to happen is bad enough.
The hubris that Decides to hard code that it turns out to have been brilliant and have worked wonderfully when the pattern that we see is no you've created a ton of new pathology that far exceeds the cost of this viral pathology and worse the viral pathology itself was tremendously manageable with already existing Safe drugs.
Absolutely.
So the point is, look, how serious was this emergency?
Well, they made it into an emergency, which then necessitated a radical intervention in their minds.
And they have decided that the radical intervention must have worked wonderfully without causing harm because they told us it was safe and effective.
And that can't have been a lie.
So, you know, so we're still injecting people with this stuff.
Which there simply isn't a defense of that.
Oh, it's absolutely scientifically indefensible at this point.
Yeah.
And even at the point at which, here's just a leap of logic.
Think of when the monoclonal antibodies were available during the height of the viral spread.
And again, at an early point, it was no longer a pandemic.
Most people had had it, natural immunity was ignored, all those things.
The moment the monoclonal antibodies were taken off the shelf should have been the moment these injections were taken off the shelf.
Because the monoclonals were specific to that variant that was circulating at the time.
The injections, in terms of the code, was no better in terms of what they were making.
And so again, that's a great point because you're either taking antibodies that were made outside the body or you're taking a message that creates antibodies inside the body, but they're equally out of date.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Yep.
Expiration date stamped on that carton.
Done.
All right.
And antibodies.
I mean, I want to just bring this up real quick because everybody, do I have antibodies?
Don't I have antibodies?
Oh, my antibodies are going down.
Good, they should.
Yeah.
Because if you had antibodies to everything you've ever been exposed to, your blood would sludge.
Right.
So that's why we have memory cells that go quiescent and when stimulated, Especially if your vitamin D level is normal.
Yeah.
Because your T helper cells will talk to your B cells and say, okay, make antibodies.
A lot of patients, and this is the silliness with a lot of vaccines in hospitals, and say, oh, let's check your titers against this disease.
Oh heavens, you don't have enough antibodies.
Well, but that's not where your immunity is.
We better re-vaccinate you.
Yeah, no, what you need to do, I have an employee, she always got told, oh, you need to get another hep B vaccine.
You're working in the hospital setting, your titers are gone.
I checked her vitamin D level and it was Ricketts level.
And I said, let's do this.
And so coached her.
She got her vitamin D level back up and guess what?
Her antibodies to hep B showed back up again.
But again, this whole antibody construct is that's your reserve system.
That's, that's your, that's your, Reserves on the battle line.
What you want is those soldiers on the front line, those marines, your T cells, to be active and surveilling and to have memory.
And if you don't have a robust, active surveillance system, then your body falls back and stimulates antibody production, etc.
So, the focus on aspects of immunology have been absolutely incorrect, and then allowing these products to continue to go forward with the surrogate marker of, look, we gave it to a handful of mice, they made antibodies.
They made antibodies, great!
But are they the right antibodies?
Because antibodies are either good or bad.
Right.
And especially with these shots, we know that multiple injections in humans produces an attenuation signal of IgG4 antibodies.
And this is a very important point, and you've heard me talk about this.
I'm a beekeeper on my farm.
Another one of my too many hobbies.
Too many hobbies, yeah.
If I'm exposed to an allergen time and time again, my body doesn't want to be itchy or I don't want to go into anaphylactic shock.
So the immune system over time will say, hey, we keep getting exposed to this thing.
Yeah.
Isn't it a pain in the butt to keep reacting the way we are?
Let's tone this down a bit.
So everybody hears about antibodies, but you have a lot of subclasses of antibodies.
IgG1, IgG3, you want to be active in response to an infection.
IgG4 says, guys we're overreacting.
And so, there's at least 10 papers now on this, that those who got multiple injections, at least two, some other studies more than that, this IgG4, which you and I have about 1.5% of our antibodies are IgG4, but to this particular virus, it was 40% in these studies.
That means you're tolerating a pathogen.
Which, you want to tolerate allergens, but when you get exposed to a similar spike protein coronavirus, etc., down the road, because it will continue to evolve, you'll be exposed again, and your immune system is narrowed, number one, you're immune imprinting, number two, this IgG4 is a problem, now your body's going to say, I don't know what to do, because I'm going to tolerate an invader.
Well, okay, so you may have heard me mention the hypothesis.
I became very unsettled about this issue when I realized, and I'm now reading Bobby Kennedy Jr.' 's new book, The Wuhan Cover-up.
I started that last night, actually.
Yeah, it's quite bracing.
It's a scary book, but in any case, it has alerted me to what I, of course, did not know, which is the degree to which a large chunk of our public health apparatus centered around Dr. Fauci, actually, is really a scheme to make biological weapons in disguise based on the idea of dual use, which is the exception.
That allows these things to be studied as long as there is a therapeutic corollary.
But here's the thing that worries me.
I'm hoping that you're going to tell me I've got it wrong and I will be slightly embarrassed and very relieved.
Okay, so you inject people with mRNA so-called vaccines that encode the spike protein.
You get two shots or more, you start producing IgG4, which is the attenuation signal not to react to spike protein.
These weapons makers.
Traditionally, they have thought in terms you have to separate two populations in order for a biological weapon to be sensible, right?
So the obvious way to do that would be that you vaccinate your population with a real vaccine that actually works and then you release a pathogen and the unvaccinated population is vulnerable.
Your pet population is not vulnerable.
And if you're the kind of person who thinks that's a win, then that's a win.
But there's another way to do the same thing.
That would be to vaccinate the target population with something that causes the attenuation signal when it spots spike protein and then graft the spike protein on some novel pathogen.
Am I wrong to think that that would produce the same effect?
Yeah, I mean, that's a two-hit hypothesis in terms of your second introduction would actually cause more problems, which is true from another mechanism, which is antibody-dependent enhancement, which is, there's about five mechanisms for enhancement, but there's a way So you want your antibodies to both bind strongly to whatever the invader is, and then to neutralize it.
And there's that little lock and key.
Once they lock on, there's a little tail region, the FC, the Fragment Crystallizable, that's supposed to also have a conformational change, such that it now becomes yummy to your Pac-Man cells.
Your garbage truck macrophages come in and eat it up.
If it binds incorrectly or loosely, now that tail isn't giving that signal to be eaten, but rather it can bind to another cell surface receptor and get sucked into your own inflammatory cells, like a Trojan horse basically.
And now that virus, be it SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-2030, whatever, now proliferates even faster.
Yeah.
Now we knew this with RSV vaccinations back in the 1960s.
This happened with certain measles vaccines.
This is not new in science.
This is not new in immunology and virology.
So to keep introducing this same or similar spike protein, which the current shots are to a variant that went extinct long ago, even the boosters, the variant that Yeah, I get tired of the disingenuous advertising that says, get your updated booster.
Well, it's updated to something that's extinct.
And now you're imprinting your immune system to remember something that's not even there.
You're narrowing the strength of that immune response.
You're tolerating, but you're also giving future opportunity for that scenario that you paint.
So it is as bleak as you paint it to be.
And I think it's important, too, to realize, yeah, we are genetically different as populations.
And there were, in silico studies, showing the strength of the binding of the spike protein to the ACE2 receptor amongst different populations, and it's stronger in certain Scandinavian populations and Caucasian populations, and it decreases, and it's less and less in others.
Those were computer modeling, supercomputers and whatnot.
It's not the only receptor that the spike protein binds but I think this is important just projecting forward into bigger biological warfare thinking and biological triggers is we as populations do have different receptors or we have the same receptors but in different quantities on ourselves.
So doing that kind of approach to Unfortunately, there are mad scientists out there thinking these things up and acting upon them.
Yeah, they have their rationalizations, which every so often you get a glimpse of these things.
And I think this also brings up a critically important point in medicine.
And I say this in all humility, doctors need to go back and learn immunology.
Yes.
Comfortably say that 99% of practicing physicians don't understand basic immunology.
And I don't say that as, oh gosh, I know more than you do.
No, I'm just saying it as if we're going to understand how the body works as a whole system in a complex system, you have 42 subspecialties.
I'm going to focus on your kidneys.
I'm going to focus on your heart.
I'm going to focus on your brain.
Nonsense.
Focus on what runs the whole machine.
Yeah.
And if you go back and understand immunology, the inputs into the body that, you know, be it vaccines of any and all sorts, be it diet.
I mean, COVID really was a foodborne disease.
Think about it.
And not carried on the food, but because of our poor diet made us more susceptible.
I don't mean foodborne, but food induced based on all the other health system problems that we have as a society.
But if you don't understand how the immune system functions, then you're not going to fix disease.
Right, and increasingly the system has become uninterested in fixing disease because there's a business that thrives when we're not healthy.
I've joked for years, if you're a good doctor, your goal should be to put yourself out of business by making your patient population so healthy they don't need you.
You can be there as a shaman or a coach at some point, but if they don't need your services, it means you've done right by your population.
Well, I want to connect up a couple things.
You probably don't know, but when I was an undergraduate, in fact, I think I was a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, I took a very good piece of advice from my older brother, my only brother, but he is older, which was, don't worry about the fact that you don't have the prerequisites for stuff.
Take what you should take.
Right?
And I took a course, not in immunology, in immunobiology taught in the medical school.
And it was one of the best courses I ever took.
It was mind-blowing.
It was taught by an interesting guy whose name I have forgotten.
But he was so fascinated by the immune system that he lectured, he stood perpendicular to the room and he stroked his beard and he had the smile on his face as he was lecturing because it is such an utterly amazing system.
You know, it is its own complex system inside the complex system that is the body.
And it has paid so many dividends for me just to know that stuff.
You know, I'm not a doctor, I'm not treating anybody, but just understanding what even makes sense is incredibly valuable.
But the other thing I noticed in part with that background is that the focus on antibodies Is really about the fact that that's almost the only immunological term that an educated non-specialist knows.
Very true.
Right?
That there are such a thing as antibodies and they're good.
Right?
And so the point is, if you wanted to game the human mind, then you do focus on, well, this shot's good because it generates a lot of antibodies.
You don't know anything about T-cells and the role that they're actually playing and the fact that, you know, And dendritic cells and macrophages and all the subsets of T cells.
Right.
Absolutely.
So anyway, I'm watching this whole thing going.
Antibodies are a poor proxy for what we're talking about, and yet they are the obsession.
The public health authorities pretend as if that's a rational obsession to have, and it's nonsense.
That's a good point.
Every public health official should have to have an immunology class.
They should!
That should be a prerequisite.
It should be a prerequisite to even doing this.
But the other thing I wanted to add is I'm also never-endingly frustrated by the absence of proper, high-quality evolutionary thinking in all of the therapeutic arts.
They're all taught as if Darwin had never published his work.
And the problem is that actually Good Darwinism is a map that allows you to figure out where the productive quadrants to search are and what fraction of the possibility space will just be empty because it doesn't make any evolutionary sense, right?
And so we talk about antibody-dependent enhancement, which is something I learned about during COVID.
Of course there would be antibody-dependent enhancement, because all of these pathogens have an extremely long evolutionary history infecting creatures with an immune system.
And so to the extent that antibodies are reliably going to show up as an animal attempts to fend off a virus, That means that one of the questions that every one of those viruses has been asked innumerable times is, what are you going to do now that you have these antibodies sticking to you, right?
I'm going to evolve around that mechanism.
I'm going to utilize it, right?
So there is a whole story here that needs to be unearthed.
And just simply having people with basic immunological knowledge would allow us to have a much higher quality conversation, which otherwise never seems to happen.
Which, yeah.
Absolutely correct.
And it goes to the whole quote of, if we don't study history, we're doomed to repeat.
We all know that one.
You don't know about me.
I took a course in evolutionary biology undergrad as well, in addition to Dr. Kim O'Neill was my undergrad immunology professor.
Same thing.
Their joy and excitement of teaching it Second to none.
And of course, because, I mean, we don't have to get real deep into it, but when I learned about clonal selection as the fundamental mechanism of adaptive immunity, it's still the most fascinating evolutionary story I have ever encountered.
Right?
That, to frame this for the audience, You have a problem, which is that you are a long-lived organism that keeps one physiology for your whole life.
That makes you a sitting duck for a pathogen that evolves extremely rapidly because its generation time is so short.
Yes.
How did selection fix this problem?
It equipped you with a subset of cells that have that evolutionary capacity that works on the same timescale as the pathogens, right?
So you have little things like amoebas, the macrophages you were talking about.
Right, this is an autonomous creature that lives.
It is you.
It's actually about as much you as your mind, genetically speaking.
Has the same genome and it runs around collecting stuff, a lot of which has been flagged by antibodies.
Hey, this is bad.
Get rid of it.
Self, non-self.
Right.
Yeah.
So that whole story is like, if you like evolution just for its own sake, because you think it's a cool topic, there is no cooler example of evolution than that one.
And most, you know, most people take, you know, they get a PhD in biology and they just never really encounter it.
And most people don't even know what a T and a B cell is.
Right.
I mean, the Bursa Fabricius, you know, the B cells and, and the reptilian and the, and The bird kingdom, etc., etc.
Why can they sit in dirty ponds, etc.?
I mean, they're robust immune systems.
I'm going to tangent real quick, if you don't mind.
T-cell, where does that term T come from?
Why gland trains are T-cells?
The thymus.
And by the time we hit 50 or so, our thymus is involuting and very small.
The majority, and this is a huge concern I have with this platform, kind of going back to that platform point.
Oh, I think I see where you're going.
Well, I've identified multiple pathologists around the world have identified where these lipid nanoparticles go.
We've identified the production of this atypical spike protein in these organs causing damage.
It goes anywhere and everywhere.
And then the immune system attacks where it lands and proliferates.
If it goes to our thymus gland, and again, I haven't had a thymus gland in a young patient from an autopsy to study yet, but if I identify spike protein and damage in that thymus gland, now you can no longer, for years forward, program your T cells So, this is the insanity of giving this type of injection without knowing the long-term consequence, because I think damaging the thymus gland at a young age damages immunity for a lifetime.
Damages immunity for a lifetime, and we would have to point out that that means vulnerability to novel pathogens especially.
And it means it opens up an indefinitely large market for pharma.
Unfortunately.
Unfortunately.
So the perverse incentive around this is spectacular.
Yes, it is.
And I think that's what's driven a lot of this.
Oh, we can try this new technology.
And again, anecdote, but there was a I had a lot of doctors and nurses come over to my laboratory during COVID.
They wanted a test of some sort.
And this one nurse whose husband happened to be on the administration at the hospital when, interestingly, Idaho was the first where three hospital systems colluded together to mandate the shots.
If you can get away with it in Idaho, you can do it in anywhere.
So whatever powers that be were behind this entire operation, they knew what they were doing.
Yeah.
But this gal says, my husband was in the meeting and we're rolling out these mRNA injections.
And he said, I'll pull out the catcher's mitt for autoimmune diseases.
They knew what downstream consequences were on their way.
So they knew.
They knew, which is frustrating.
And we can be more in the world or we can do something.
We can keep speaking up like you do, and like I try to do, and... But if we could just teach doctors and scientists basic immunology... Basic immunology which, you know...
There's every reason to do it.
And how do you augment your immune system?
Well, obviously, you've been talking about vitamin D. Vitamin D, which I learned from you.
And I will give Dr. Michael Hollick credit, I think, for that flu and cold season, which I kind of flipped the phrase from him.
But I've been studying his work for years.
And again, like spitting in the wind, he was trying to get this point out there years ago.
Brilliant vitamin D researcher.
Again, I think he's out of Boston as well.
And there are so many good vitamin D researchers.
Dr. Anderson in the UK.
If we spent $20 billion repleting the depleted vitamin D levels of a world, we would save the system about $300 billion in costs.
Well, this was the most maddening thing about the whole vitamin D business.
I don't care how uncertain you are that it has a positive effect with respect to COVID.
I mean, the evidence was absolutely clear on that front from pretty early on.
But even if it wasn't...
Let's say you had no idea.
Well, if you are a logical person, then the answer is probably it works because it works across the board in terms of immunity.
And let's imagine it didn't.
A, it's not dangerous because the body is capable of disassembling excess vitamin D. And what are the side effects?
They're all positive.
Yeah.
And whenever I talk about vitamin D, I always say, make sure you're taking some magnesium because magnesium helps push calcium back to the bone and vitamin K2 as well.
Because people that think, oh, if this much is good, a lot is better.
Goldilocks effect in life.
Again, complex biological systems have feedback loops and too much can cause harm, too little can not benefit.
So you have to find that happy zone.
Even back to COVID, Mayo Clinic did a study.
If your vitamin D was above 30, you didn't go to the ICU.
Simple as that.
And once you had that paper out early, then it should have been game over.
I had hospital administrators yelling it to the local news.
Oh, vitamin D, whatever.
It's not a vitamin.
It's a pro-hormone.
Yeah.
And it's the master conductor of your immune system, et cetera, et cetera.
And to your point, you can activate it, inactivate it.
In fact, in mouse models, laboratory models, if I want to inactivate vitamin D, what do I do?
I feed them high fructose corn syrup.
It dehydroxylates and inactivates vitamin D. What's in 80% of foodstuffs on the shelf of your grocery store?
High fructose corn syrup.
It is a vitamin D inactivator.
And we're already a vitamin D insufficient, if not deficient, society.
Right, this is a novelty problem.
So, in fact, this is a very good benchmark because Heather and I wrote into our book a skepticism about supplementation.
Sure.
Right?
And the basic logic was sound, which is if your diet is proper, then you're probably not deficient in most things.
However, A, our diets are not proper because lots of these foods have been altered for long supply chains and things like this.
But more to the point, vitamin D is not something you primarily take in in your food.
You primarily make it in the sun.
And we live indoors to the extent that we have sunlight coming in.
It's coming through glass, which eliminates most of the UV.
So the point is, the part that we had missed when we wrote our book is you are almost, if you live in the temperate zones, you are almost certainly deficient in vitamin D.
Which is almost certainly having tremendous negative impacts on your vulnerability to pathogens.
Correct.
And therefore, supplementing is correcting a novel circumstance, right?
So, and then once you had the evidence that it worked better than anything else for COVID, right?
Your single If the lowest cost, highest effect intervention was vitamin D, then the answer is, well, if you're so obsessed with our health that you're willing to take our civil liberties to protect us from this thing, you're not going to bother to recommend this thing that even if it somehow turned out it didn't have a positive effect would make you less vulnerable to a dozen other things that you're likely to get?
I mean, including cancer.
Including cancer.
Yeah, the further north you move, the higher the colon cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, and it correlates.
Again, correlation is not causation, but it's fascinating to observe patterns of winter illnesses in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere.
And that angle of incidence, as we tilt away from the sun during those winter seasons, Those UVB rays bounce off the atmosphere until we're above that 37.5 degrees where they can come through and we start synthesizing again.
And to your point, it's a societal problem.
Adiposity, being obese, sequesters your vitamin D. That's why I talk about magnesium as well, because it mobilizes your D from your fat stores.
The darker your skin, the further north you live.
Yep, the bigger the challenge.
Melanin is a natural sunscreen.
You have to spend six to ten times as much time outside as say, you know, a more pale skinned individual would.
Because equatorially, that's where the darker skin was protective at the equator.
Where the sun is always coming through at a steeper angle.
Absolutely, all the time.
And therefore, you have less of a challenge.
Once you understand these things, it's not hard.
And what does this all boil back to?
The immune system, because it's the conductor of the immune system, which does what?
Fight off cancers, regulate metabolism, take care of activity of different immune cells for fighting off viruses, etc.
So it's fundamental and foundational as one of the principles of immunology.
Yeah, absolutely.
And so supplementing to the book, when you said that, I'm like, okay, I get where they're coming from, but we don't live that ideal evolutionarily adapted lifestyle anymore.
Absolutely.
We would write that section entirely differently if we had it to do over, because the fact is you're correcting a defect caused by novelty.
The book is about the defects caused by novelty, and we hadn't spotted that one at the point that we wrote it.
A couple other things.
Oh, I did want to mention your point about the angle of the sun and the seasonality and us tilting away and all of that.
I highly recommend an app called Deminder.
Yep, that was that first talk I gave.
I mentioned that.
I've forgotten that, so that's probably where I got it.
But Deminder allows you to know, given where I am standing, There are months, many months in the year when you can't make any vitamin D at all.
You may go out in the sun and think you're making vitamin D and you're not, right?
So where does supplementation come in?
Well, you ought to be thinking about supplementing any time you can't make vitamin D in the sun because the sun is coming through too much atmosphere.
Likewise, knowing what hours of the day you can make vitamin D. Right.
How much vitamin D you're getting based on how much clothing you're wearing.
All of these things.
This is tremendously important information.
And, you know, it is great to be able to have a device tell you actually, you know, here's an hour you can make some.
Here's a reminder.
And I have the notifications that, hey, it's your peak vitamin D synthesis.
And when you do, especially during those Healthy vitamin D months go out 20-30 minutes until you just start to pink, don't burn, and then cover up and that natural vitamin D is more long-lived than taking synthetic because if you take a vitamin D3 you still have to go through liver bypass and hydroxylate and etc.
etc.
You have to go through multiple steps before it's active.
Sunshine's your friend.
And not just, interestingly, not just for vitamin D. So, even in the wintertime, going outside and getting sunshine is critically important because of near-infrared light, which stimulates those ever-important mitochondria that we were talking about in the cancer pathways.
Mitochondria have their own production of melatonin, which is the most powerful antioxidant in the body, but it's the intracellular melatonin, so it mops up any damage and debris within cells.
So going outside any and every day, rain or sun, being outside and getting light is critically important overall.
Yes, and it just so happens that it also has a radically positive impact on your psychology.
Imagine that.
Yeah, imagine that all these things point in the same direction.
All right, so I wanted to ask you about a couple things just before we lose them.
Sure.
The answer of course does not have to be yes, but do you have a good sense of what the connection is between the mRNA transfection platform and the radical change in the landscape of cancer?
There are multiple mechanisms.
So number one, going back to, I don't think the spike is the be all end all.
The spike protein in and of itself, and as you know, any good paper with good science that spoke against the narrative was forced to be retracted.
Yeah.
There was a great paper that came out of Sweden showing how the spike protein disrupted T cell repair and DNA repair mechanisms.
Okay.
So number one, We know it does that.
Number two, we know it damages it.
But that shouldn't distinguish it between the virus and the so-called vaccine.
Correct.
Correct.
The persistence.
But consider it in a viral infection.
The majority of us are going to clear that virus in a natural infection with a competent immune system.
That virus is gone in 7 to 14 days.
Right, so the spike protein is not a long-term exposure, it's a short-term exposure.
Right, except for in rare immune-suppressed individuals.
Dr. Bruce Patterson has shown it circulating in macropodges and some immune-suppressed individuals for over a year.
From infection.
From infection.
But the synthetic injection that persistently makes spike protein, now you have a chronic exposure to it.
Yeah.
There are studies that show it damages mitochondria.
Again, I think that one of the main mechanisms of cancer is mitochondrial dysfunction.
So, wait, wait, wait.
You tell me if I've got it wrong, but first of all, the pseudo-uridine process was used to, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, the maniacs who made these things and decided to inflict them on humans.
They had a concern, which was that their so-called vaccine would be too weak to produce an effect.
In order to make it more effective per shot, they stabilized the mRNA messages.
They substituted every single uracil with the pseudouridines, which is not natural.
Pseudouridines do exist in nature, but very rarely.
Instead, they swapped out every one of the uracils in their message, making a hyperstable molecule, which should not be hyperstable, and it's very unnatural.
But that mechanism has now, the exact mechanism of pseudouridine hyperstabilization, has been given a Nobel Prize, of all things.
One of the biggest design defects in these shots, and that's saying something because there are an awful lot of design defects, But it was given a Nobel Prize giving it the sense that it was a brilliant insight when in fact it was a medical disaster.
Yeah, I mean, think back though, the Nobel Prize was given for lobotomies.
And what did medicine learn years later?
What a disaster.
So I think we'll look back on this and this same Nobel will be looked at with, wait, what were we thinking?
Does it have research utility?
Does it have potential utility for inborn errors of metabolism in certain rare genetic disorders?
Maybe.
Yeah.
Maybe.
But as a vaccine platform, no.
As a therapeutic?
No, never as a therapeutic.
Because again, it goes everywhere.
And again, this stabilized synthetic uridine was also designed to evade immune response.
So blocking out one of the ways that the immune system would address a runaway message.
So, other cancer mechanisms… Well, hold on.
I want to just complete that little story.
Yeah, yeah.
Complete that thought.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, you've got this hyper-stabilized mRNA message producing spike proteins.
Oh, and by the way, a lot of other things… Indefinitely.
Indefinitely.
There's no study showing when it stops making them.
Right.
So, we've seen that they persist for a long time, and the end of our ability to see that is the end of how long it's been studied.
So, who knows how long it lasts?
I think of it… as like a fiberglass log in a zoo exhibit, right?
It looks like a log, and you would think the termites and saprophytic fungi would eventually take it apart, but it's fiberglass.
No, it's sticking around indefinitely.
But anyway, okay, so you've got the ribosomes in these cells producing a huge amount of product, some of which is presumably spike protein or spike protein-like.
Some of it's not because of frameshift issues, and so you've got a lot of garbage protein, right?
Just like, you know, monkeys at a typewriter protein.
That is going to start crowding a cell?
Well, yeah, so it's going to cause internal cellular damage.
And that cell now has two options.
One is to self-implode, autophagy.
Right.
Or two... T-cells.
Well, yeah, a T-cell can come blow it up, or it can try to adapt, and it may have a maladaptive process to the buildup within it, which may lead to mutation.
Yeah.
And the other thing to consider is there's There are multiple cell cycle pathways and multiple different proteins that our body makes to stave off cancer.
We have a whole family of genes called p53.
It's a tumor suppressor family of genes.
It's not just one gene.
It's a tumor suppressor family.
Spike protein binds to the p53 receptor.
It does.
And think of the other, we don't even know what the shorter aberrant proteins, they may bind as well.
So now you have this whole milieu of different proteins that could bind there.
We know it binds to the BRCA gene in silico.
So we have known cancer regulatory genes that can be bound and dysregulated by this protein made by this synthetic shot.
Now, in addition, and this is critically important, if you look at Moderna's patents, they were highly concerned about DNA being in a product because it could lead I have this in some of my talks.
If you want to put it on the website, I'll send it to you.
Moderna's own patent.
Because DNA in the shot can lead to mutation and carcinogenesis.
In the BioNTech and the Pfizer applications, they said, well, this is lipids and mRNA.
We're not even going to look for mutation and carcinogenicity because it's mRNA.
Well, it's not.
Because what we found is in multiple laboratories around the world, There is contaminating DNA within these injected products, which also have sequences in them which help them co-locate into the nucleus of the cell.
They are hyper-designed to go where you don't want your mechanisms messed with.
You're talking about SV40?
SV40 promoter region.
So SV is simian virus.
This is a green monkey.
Yeah, it's a biotech promoter region, something that came from a green monkey that is now utilized in, people may have heard us talk about there having been an initial process for the production of these shots.
Well, yeah.
That did not involve DNA plasmids.
And then there was a second process which did not get safety tested.
Such an important story.
Yeah, it's a really, it's a really important, I mean, it's a bait and switch, right?
It's an absolute bait and switch.
They did a synthetic thing that they used for the trial.
And then the population that got the shot got process number two, which was the contaminated process.
Which has all of this DNA.
All the junk in it.
It's got a tremendous range in lengths.
So basically you're getting an arbitrary set of DNA but some of it includes this SV40 promoter which is strongly likely to result in integration in the nuclear genome And that's been shown by Dr. Alden in liver cell lines, you know, Dr. McKernan last week, he showed an ovarian cancer cell line integration.
Yeah.
And there are two other more obscure papers that show integration as well.
So there are four papers now that show integration events.
All right, now if I can flash us back to our recent meeting in Romania.
I had a moment of great pride that came through you where you gave a talk and you described the fact of cancers that had been apparently induced by these mRNA vaccinations or so-called vaccinations
And you said, kind of offhandedly as you showed a slide in which they had been labeled with something and allowed you to see it, you said that the cancer cells were producing spike protein.
And I thought, what did he just say?
Because that implies, in order for that to be true, a cancer starts with a single cell that becomes dysregulated.
In order for all of the daughter cells that are produced in that cancer to be producing spike protein, that spike protein has to be carried along and duplicated, which suggests integration.
Every time that cell divides, then that next cell is still expressing that sequence to make that protein, and then we Put a little tag to bind that protein to show that it's there.
And you're one of the few people that picked up on that.
There's only a handful of people.
When I show that slide, Dr. Burkhart, the late, great Dr. Burkhart, he showed it in a gastric cancer, the lymphoid cells of a gastric cancer.
So every lymphoid cell had expression of spike protein.
Now, I showed it in a pancreatic cancer when I was doing testing in my laboratory.
That says that either it's integrated into the DNA, but it can also co-locate into the nucleus.
And still be viable if it's red.
But something's happening in order for that spike to still be expressed each time that cell divides.
Well, you would get a pattern, a rapid pattern of decrease in the production of spike protein if it was not being duplicated somehow.
So something is duplicating that mRNA message or integrating it into the DNA in some way, which involves a set of pathways that really shouldn't be operating.
Correct.
So, anyway, fascinating and terrifying.
Which couldn't explain the rapid behavior of some of these unusually behaving cancers.
Right.
Which, of course, most of... And additionally, yeah, I'll keep going, because I can tangent onto a bunch of pathways.
Another problem is interferons.
We have all sorts of interferons in our body, and these are little chemical signals our cells make to induce things to react or calm things down, etc.
Type 1 interferon.
is critically important in viral pathways.
If we want to respond to a virus, we ramp up our type 1 interferon.
There are many drugs that cannot be named that ramp up type 1 interferon, and hence they have a very effective mechanism not only against viruses but against cancer as well.
You're talking about ivermectin.
I am indeed.
Yeah.
I am indeed.
It's one of its primary mechanisms, in addition to being an anti-clotting agent and decreasing all sorts of other cell cycle pathways that lead to clotting, etc., etc.
That's strange for a horse paste to be able to do all that.
Oh my gosh, I tell you, yeah.
That 4 billion people on the planet have taken over 37 years.
Did they all think they were horses?
Nah, nah, nah.
So interferon, that's critical as well.
Now think of the microclotting.
Persistent hypoxia can lead to inflammation, which can lead to genetic damage as well, which can lead to dysregulated cell cycle pathways and cancer, et cetera, et cetera.
Gosh, I have a whole list on one of my slides because I've pulled so many papers on this.
I'm sure I'm leaving a dozen of these out at the moment.
But there are so many.
Contamination.
Synthetic RNA, DNA being where it shouldn't be.
I think the one that needs to be explored even more is the persistence of these atypical proteins.
And again, with that frame shifting of this message, that decoder ring going wrong, a bunch of those combined to different promoter genes.
It's a plethora of potential mechanisms.
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a randomizer.
It's a biology randomizer, right?
To throw the ribosomes a message that is hard for the ribosomes to interpret.
And so you get lots of partial product, lots of misspelled product that cannot help, but just disrupt the processes that work in some arbitrary and unpredictable way.
And what people don't quite get is you've got, You tell me if this is not a match for your understanding, but you've got basically two failure modes for bodily systems.
One failure mode is a failure to maintain itself, and the other is the over-proliferation of cells.
So it's like over-repair and under-repair, right?
The reason that we can't solve the under-repair problem is because you make the over-repair problem worse, right?
If you give cells the ability to indefinitely copy themselves, you get more cancer, and so anyway, selection has balanced us.
Feedback systems, feedback loops, absolutely.
So we're constantly threading that needle.
But the basic point is, OK, cancer is not a disease.
It is a failure mode.
So every cancer is unique.
Every tissue in the body, with a few interesting exceptions, produces cancers when it fails in this particular way.
And here you have an ill-conceived shot basically throwing chaos inside of cells.
The idea that some fraction of the cells that have this informational chaos introduced into them end up failing in the direction of cancer shouldn't really surprise anybody.
Not at all.
And again, that none of these manufacturers even tested for it, I think is reasonably telling.
It's almost like not testing for it would allow you not to find it.
You can't find what you don't look for.
There you go.
I say that in my talks all the time.
You cannot find what you don't look for.
And I think, to go back to your earlier point, it emphasizes that the platform isn't proven or safe because it's not about this spike protein.
It's not about this particular synthetic mRNA sequence.
It's about any sequence.
If they want to do it for flu, RSV, You name it, any of these, quote, potential deadly pathogens going forward, that they want the convenience of using something they can manufacture quickly.
And they don't have to keep an egg factory going to... It's warm-based versus cold-based manufacturing.
And they don't have to keep their machines on all the time to continue to evolve with whatever the next strain coming along is for their convenience.
Cold-based, rapidly ramping up production of a synthetic mRNA and injecting it.
It's convenient for them, but it introduces chaos into cellular systems.
It's a biologically bad idea.
Absolutely.
Fundamentally flawed.
Fundamentally flawed.
And I agree that what they see is, on paper, This just seems like genius, right?
It's straightforward.
Presumably they're imagining a day when they don't really have to test each shot because the only thing you really need to know is if the message you're loading into it is causing some new kind of problem.
So this could streamline the whole thing.
everything they reformulate on the basis of this platform is suddenly repatentable, right?
You can do it with- That's a great point.
All of the existing vaccines, innumerable new vaccines.
You could do it for all kinds of therapeutics.
So the basic point is they're reinventing pharma right in front of our eyes, but they're reinventing it on a technology that will cause a majority of these pathologies each and every time they deploy it.
Doesn't matter the protein.
Doesn't matter the protein.
Yeah, it really doesn't.
And so the, you know- But it goes back, you were going down the cancer pathway.
Yeah, cancer is complex, lots of gene breaks, et cetera, et cetera.
But you boil it back down to what two organs generally don't develop cancer?
The heart.
The heart and the brain.
And the brain.
Brain cancer is the supporting cells.
Right, it's not the neurons.
It's not the neurons, it's the astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, etc., it's the supporting cells.
What do those primarily run on?
They run on ketones and lipids.
Those cells have a different metabolic pathway.
I didn't realize that.
And so your brain and your heart And this is even a problem in the Nakahara study, where it shows the glucose uptake in the heart and the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort, and the heart becoming dependent on glucose metabolism.
Yeah, this was a very significant cardiac study, and they were looking at fluorodeoxyglucose, I forget the tag, FDG, but they were using a glucose uptake marker, which is an indication of cardiac damage.
And in the unvaccinated group, clean.
In the vaccinated group, six months out, it was a high percentage.
I don't want to say all because I never want to be hyperbolic, but never say never, never say always.
But it was a high percentage that the cardiac tissue was damaged.
And you can tell because it's utilizing glucose, and that only happens in damaged cells.
That happens in cancer cells, cancer cells like glucose.
So brain, heart, lipid ketone, that's preferred fuel.
And so it's interesting that other organs in the body that can, you know, regulate and uptake glucose and whatnot, and cancers, again, doesn't matter the pathway development or the type of cancer or the organ, the majority, I'm not saying all, but it's interesting if you can choke off the fuel to the cancer, which is glucose, Then it loses its cell cycle fermentation pathway and ends up with those destruction signals.
And you can, I'm not saying it's the be all end all, but it's a fascinating area to look at in cancer compared to where we are just trying to poison it, which poisons all the cells in the body.
So it's just a different approach to cancer.
And again, going back to this technology, et cetera, if you damage the mitochondria, now those cells Don't have the energy to repair themselves properly.
And again, they're either going to self-destruct, be destroyed by one of the outside immune cells or turn into a mutation pathway.
Okay.
Interesting.
Which is just a different evolutionary, I mean, evolutionarily, I mean, mitochondria obviously were Consumed by another cell and then now we have these primordial... Their ancestor was an independent organism that was taken in.
Right.
And so to think back across species, which species do get cancer, what species metabolize, what their diets are and compare cancer across different species.
And then consider the metabolic theory of cancer production is all cancer mitochondrial.
I'm just hypothesizing.
I think it's a fascinating thought.
Yeah, it is a fascinating thought.
It's just out there more to research and dive down, but it's one that's crossed my mind in some of the research I've done recently.
And I did a fair amount of pipetting doing mitochondrial studies back in the college days.
Yeah.
Back when mitochondria were still new.
Yes.
And I rode my dinosaur to school.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah, I'll pill in both directions.
So I wanted to ask you, the backstory isn't so important, but just so the audience can keep track.
I advanced a hypothesis about why the mRNA transfection shots were causing myocarditis.
And I took a lot of flack over it.
And in fact, there was one bit of pushback from one of these online debunk accounts.
Now, the fault is partly mine.
In fact, maybe it's all mine.
I invited pushback and then I got this pushback from this guy and I was busy traveling and I have not responded to it yet.
So it's still on the agenda.
But I wanted to run this by you.
And if I have this wrong, You'll tell me.
And if I don't have it wrong, you'll tell me what part I haven't spotted yet.
But anyway, the hypothesis is this.
The lipid nanoparticle-coated mRNAs, they go around the body.
They weren't supposed to do that.
Totally predictable that they would do that, but they weren't supposed to do that.
We were told they would stay in the deltoid.
As soon as we discovered that they circulated, then the following thing became, in my opinion, inevitable.
The inevitable thing is that the lipid nanoparticles, because like dissolves like, lipids get taken up by cells because cells are all covered in a fat layer.
They will be haphazardly absorbed by various tissues in the body.
The proper pharmacokinetics wasn't done, but in any case, you can imagine that there will be some uptake in any tissue in which the circulation takes these lipid nanoparticles.
When that happens in, let's say, your heart, it sets in motion an inevitable process.
The mRNA causes the production of proteins which you yourself do not make and this is true whether those proteins are spike protein as the manufacturer says they will be or haphazard consequences of the ribosome making an error.
But, the inevitable consequence will be that the cells will show the hallmark of viral infection, which is the production of non-self proteins and self proteins, and that once a cell is displaying that pattern, the immune system, T-cells specifically, maybe natural killer cells and cytotoxic T-cells will come and destroy the cells that are doing this, and that if that happens in your liver,
It's probably not a huge deal because you can replace liver tissue readily.
If it happens in your heart, it's potentially a very big deal, especially if it's not just a few cells, but it's a patch of cells that gets destroyed by your cytotoxic T cells, which regard the cell that's making these foreign proteins as virally infected, which is the only Analog in nature that would produce this effect, or maybe cancer could if you had a chaotic production of proteins.
But still, whether it's a cancer cell or a virally infected cell, the right thing for the immune system to do based on its evolutionary history is destroy the cells in question.
And that leaves a problem because hearts do not repair in the way that most of the body does.
Scar over at best right you have a wound and then you get a scar and that scar Compromises the capacity of the heart and the period well you still have a wound before you have a scar you have a tremendous vulnerability Right that the wall of the vessel is now compromised a moment of high Vascular pressure could cause a rupture so anyway my point was
A shot that causes your cells to produce foreign protein that may sometimes do that in your heart is going to cause wounding and we will recognize that as myocarditis, which really just means Inflammation of the heart and that's not really the disease.
That's a symptom of the disease in this case.
It's destroyed cells Which had been killed by your immune system And what you're describing was printed in the European Journal of Immunology.
I'm blanking on the author's name.
I apologize for that.
But it's a process called antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.
So we're not talking about antibody-dependent enhancement, but it's exactly the mechanism you described.
Human cells are meant to make human proteins.
And if a human cell expresses a foreign protein, then the body says, wait a minute, something's wrong with that cell.
And then all the immune cells you described come in and target that cell.
And so in addition to laying down that scar inhibiting function, you have to consider that the heart is basically this fantastic electrical net That beats in a beautiful rhythmic pattern for your whole lifetime.
Now if you have inflammation in part of that net, Then these cells in this part of the heart, because of that inflammation, aren't going to be contracting properly in conjunction with cells in another part of the heart.
So when you hear about myocarditis, it's not that the entire heart's inflamed.
What we see under the microscope and what many labs have now shown, it's patchy.
Yeah.
But if you, you have these main bundles of nerves that fire to keep that heart, you know?
Yeah.
You mess up one of those bundles and get a bundle branch block.
You can set up a clot in the heart.
You can cut off circulation to the smaller vessels in the heart.
You can kill that tissue.
All sorts of things can happen.
And are there other viruses that cause, yeah, Coxsackieviruses.
Yeah, there are a lot of other viruses that can cause myocarditis.
It's rare.
It happens in viral infections, but to introduce a toxic protein that the cells are producing Yeah.
With no targeting mechanism.
Yeah, that's the problem.
And the other important thing, and I should have brought this up in the cancer pathways, in addition to other infection pathways, there was an early study out of the Netherlands done by Dr. Fossa that showed we have pattern receptors in our cell.
Toll-like receptors, like a toll road.
And we have, I think, one less than mice do.
And some are on the surface and some are within the cell.
And two of these little pattern receptors basically are telling the immune system how to act.
Number seven and eight, toll-like receptor seven and eight, when those are decreased, we're more susceptible to other infections, especially viral, especially herpetic.
So after the shots in the laboratory, we saw an increase in reactivated Epstein-Barr virus, HSV-1, HSV-2.
etc etc hsv4 is epstein-par because seven and eight were dysregulated and this was a study on just two pfizer shots who knows what a bunch will do but then the other problem is toll-like receptors number three and four now these are high and you can study this in different types of cancer what the toll-like receptor expression is or isn't in different types of tumors as well And this goes to an interesting aspect of cardiac tissue that's inflamed and damaged.
The expression of toll-like receptor number four, which will induce certain T cells to come in and cause harm.
Now, what can down-regulate toll-like receptor number 4?
Near-infrared light.
Now, this is in vitro, but it's fascinating the type of studies that should be done, again, thinking out of the box of just conventional medicine and science.
It's like, wait, here's a fascinating observation.
Here's some evidence.
I have a hypothesis that this would be beneficial in treatment of these types of conditions.
Why don't we look at these kind of things?
Is there billions of dollars to be made in it?
No.
No.
Are there lives to be saved?
Right, yeah, there are.
Potentially.
Potentially.
All right, well that's... But yeah, your mechanism's correct.
Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.
Yeah, it makes so much sense and, you know, I'm embarrassed it took me a while to figure out that that would be a likely mechanism.
But anyway, it seems to me a slam dunk and I've seen a certain amount of evidence that suggests it's true, you know, the T-cells.
Well, and again, we've shown cardiac tissues expressing spike protein.
Dr. Burkhart's lab showed it.
A couple other labs have shown it now.
So, we know that those cells are expressing a protein.
They shouldn't express it.
And now there's that target.
So you're correct.
And it's been observed.
It's been verified pathologically.
Yeah.
Okay.
I wanted to ask you about something else.
There is an awful lot of heat around the idea.
There's a group of people, some of whom I know, who have become convinced that there was no novel pathogen during COVID.
And while on the one hand, I believe they've missed their point.
I think their actual point should be something like, no novel pathogen was necessary for most of what took place during COVID.
There was an awful lot of psychological manipulation that involved fear of a pathogen, but did not require there to be a pathogen.
As far as I'm concerned, it is a slam dunk that there was a pathogen, a novel one, circulating, and that that is not our minds playing tricks on us, spotting normal flu that we would have gotten otherwise, and diagnosing it as COVID.
There was an awful lot of weirdness surrounding the tests for COVID, which seemed to be bizarrely unreliable.
But in any case, I wanted to get your assessment as a doctor who was working with samples from patients of all levels of sickness.
How confident are you that there was a novel pathogen circulating during what we, I think, wrongly called a pandemic?
I call it semi-novel because the homology to SARS-CoV-1, another beta coronavirus, is 76% homologous.
And if you look at the proteins of common cold coronaviruses, Whether you're looking at the other, the nucleocapsid region or other regions, anywhere from 40 to 60% similar to, and it goes to your expertise of evolutionary biology.
What's novel about this one is the spike protein And the improbability that it would bind to human cells to the degree of affinity to which it does.
Which, again, goes back to many of the books you and I have both read in presentations, that this was targeted and engineered in a way to be novel in its behavior.
Genetically, it's not as novel as, oh, de novo, here's a brand new virus.
Yeah.
No, here's a backbone.
And here's a new damaging modality that has been tacked onto it.
So it's novel in that regard.
And this is why a lot of people didn't happen to get very sick with it, because they had cross reactivity to so many other proteins in their immune system.
This is so similar to all those colds have had that.
Sure.
The immune system had seen close relatives.
Yeah, I don't mean novel in the sense of wildly different.
I mean novel in the sense that... The behavior was different.
I mean, how many viruses caused the extreme clotting that we saw with this virus in the pre-rollout of the injections?
It was causing certain harms that we weren't used to seeing clinically.
In that sense, yeah, we were seeing novel behaviors of it.
Right.
A novel set of pathologies arose from it.
And in my opinion, I mean, part of the argument for there being no novel pathogen is that biologists overrate their capacity to actually produce anything new that would stand up under environmental conditions.
And I have some sympathy with that.
That's the kind of argument I would often make about the hubris of biologists who think they can outwit nature.
But that's not what I think happened.
I think mostly what happened is a pathogen that would not have jumped to humans, might have jumped to individual humans, humans, but would not have jumped to humans and circulated amongst them, was shepherded into humans in the laboratory for presumably weapons purposes.
But nonetheless, that, you know, if I observe mongoose in Hawaii, and And I say, yeah, people did that.
I'm not arguing they built a mongoose.
Right.
Right.
I'm arguing they carried one there.
Right.
And that that has effects which echo to this day, you know, that we are suffering to some extent from descendants of that jump.
Yeah, just like ships bring in mussels from other ports and shores that don't belong here and mess up ecosystems.
Yeah, effectively SARS-CoV-2 is an invasive... Yeah, and I can see their argument, too, that statistically, look, it was no worse than a bad flu season overall.
In some areas.
No, I wouldn't argue with the idea that the significance, the medical significance of a case of COVID was in scale of things that we already had.
But here's what bothers me about that argument.
Let's say that this is somewhere in the neighborhood of flu in terms of virulence, the harm done to the human.
Okay, well, we had flu.
Now somebody has jumped another thing that isn't flu into people that has that.
So, you know, and I must say, there's a question about how many times in life you're going to get this.
There was some amount of...
Flu that you were going to get in a lifetime.
Somebody's now introduced an alternative flavor of pathogen.
It doesn't matter to me that it's not worse than flu.
The point is I was already going to get flu a certain number of times in life and now I have to get flu plus this other thing, right?
That's a lot of sickness, right?
So the cost in terms of the human population suffering from cases of descendants of whatever the hell they did, that's a massive loss to humanity even if it is no worse than flu.
It may not radically alter how you should feel about an individual case.
So it's additive to what else exists in the milieu, yes.
Exactly, exactly.
I will also say though, I'm convinced based on what my family saw and experienced, that there was a novel pathogen and the number of excellent doctors who saw this clinically, or in your case as a pathologist.
That doesn't tell me what virus it was, right?
In other words, I'm open to the possibility that the story that we've gotten about SARS-CoV-2 is not the story of the so-called pandemic, right?
Or it is part of the story, but not the whole story.
But what I'm, you know, I'm open to anything in principle.
But it's going to be a high bar to establish that there was no novel pathogen, because I got sick with something not in the winter, multiple times, and it was pretty significant.
Right?
Maybe not worse than a flu, but bad.
Yeah, it was different than a flu for me when I got it back in December of 21?
December 21.
So I got to enjoy the Delta variant.
But in terms of overblowing the testing, I got criticized in the media for lowering my cycle thresholds.
And they're like, you can't do that.
And I said, well, if you read federal standards, a laboratory director can set ranges on tests based on his population.
But, you know, some dumpy newspaper reporter that knows more than a physician, scientist, lab director.
You can do that.
Yes, I can.
Because it's nonsense.
So I think we hyped a pandemic with excess PCR cycles, no doubt about it.
about it.
And then it was fascinating that even the regulator says, "Well, you can't report the number of cycles at which it replicated." Do I think PCR is a great test?
When utilized correctly.
Take, for example, you come to me, you have symptoms, you're at cell cycle, 30 times to replicate.
Granted, this is logarithmic to get the quantities on PCR.
Three days later you come to me, you're sicker, and you replicate and have detection at cell cycle 15.
Yeah.
You're going into illness.
Right.
Now I know I need to treat you.
If you come to me and you're not sure, and you're at 20 or 30, and then a week later you're up at, you know, 32, 33, you're going out of disease.
Yeah.
Your amount that your body is making.
So it can be, I think sequential PCR can be semi-quantitative and useful.
Spot testing a population that's asymptomatic is insanity.
Especially with the high cycle thresholds.
Absolutely.
For people to get a sense for this.
You've got this I mean it is a near miraculous technology, right?
The ability to use... I used it in the early days after Carey Mullis did it when I was doing my undergrad work.
It is a phenomenal construct to take an enzyme from an organism in the ocean near the vent and take this little polymerase and to be able to do what PCR does.
Right.
It is a beautiful demonstration of the power of exponential growth.
It is a very elegant, highly biological technology, right?
Basically what was invented was just the conditions that would allow this natural biological process to ramp itself up so that you could amplify very, very tiny signals.
But the problem is in a world that is contaminated, you know, if you do have COVID circulating, then the point is, well, you've got an exponential amplifier, right?
So finding the tiniest fragment of something somewhere means that you can amplify it and you say, oh, this person's sick with COVID.
And the answer is no, they were slightly contaminated, you know.
Well, and I've given talks where I've been in a room of hundreds of people.
I said, look, I can swab all of you, and if I amplify for strep, one of you is the strep carrier, like the kid in the classroom that gives all the other kids strep and never gets strep.
Yeah.
A bunch of you are going to have Epstein-Barr that I can find.
A bunch of you are going to have adenovirus.
A bunch of you are going to have entero... I'm going to find just about anything and everything in that room.
But if it's not at a high level and nobody's sick, then it's that...
I equivalent it to Pigpen and the Peanuts cartoon.
We are all little clouds of our own microbiome, walking around, exuding our own organisms constantly, and this is why it's important to be in social groups from an adaptive evolutionary point of view, is we want to be challenged and stimulated and triggered constantly so our immune system is constantly surveilling.
Yes, as George Carlin famously pointed out in arguing that his childhood swimming in the Hudson River... Yes, he did everything!
Exactly.
But to your point, yes, just because we can detect something, it doesn't have meaning.
Right.
And if you were cynically going to try to create the impression of a A wildly sick population.
Then you would put a death ticker on every television station and you'd have a number of positive tests today.
There was a PSYOP and the PSYOP was at least partially constructed of the abuse of PCR, which Kerry Mullis was in no position to shout about because he was dead.
But, anyway, so the PSYOP was there, but PSYOP doesn't mean there wasn't a novel pathogen.
As for what the novel pathogen was, as a non-doctor, I can't… And there were new clinical behaviors.
There absolutely were.
There were new clinical behaviors, and all the doctors… From a pathology point of view, absolutely.
Yeah.
Doctors who saw that pattern knew they were dealing with something.
Yes.
Okay.
I wanted to go back to something you said, which… Slightly contravening something I often say, but we're going to wrestle it into meaning here.
You said there are lots of viruses that attack the heart, and you said that it's very rare.
My interpretation of this is that viruses attacking the heart is rare because evolution is effective, and the heart is not a great place to jump from one person to another.
That might be a way to get from one part of the body to the other, but replicating in the heart is not a go-to strategy.
A, it's a risk to the individual whose heart it is, and since that person has a virus that the virus would like to be spread from, The other mechanism here that I think needs to be looked at, this goes to a hapten-like response in immunology, where a part of a protein expressed is similar to a human protein.
So even though the cell isn't infected, Because you bind this part of the organism to this part of a human protein, you get this, uh-oh, is it human or not?
And so this conjugation, so it may not, these viruses may not be replicating in the heart at all, but because they've triggered a certain response in the cells in the immune system to say, Let's upregulate this line of attacking cells and they're like wait a minute that proteins on that tissue or that tissue so it's a hapten like response instead of a direct that organ that cell is making that so that can happen as well.
Got it so hold on one second so this would actually be more likely than people might expect because The way immunity works, when you are in utero, your body produces a huge range of immunological cells, both B and T, I believe.
And they're naive.
They're naive and they react in principle to essentially every conceivable protein.
And then the body eliminates all of those that are activated while you're in utero.
So the point is your immune system is capable of reacting to anything at all.
But it is turned off with respect to those things that you yourself produce, which creates this beautiful self-non-self recognition system.
So your body is basically calm when it's not challenged with anything because all of the proteins it sees are ones that it doesn't react to.
But the problem is that creates an opportunity for pathogens that can evolve in the direction of looking like a protein that you yourself make.
Correct.
Yeah, that's an easier way to say it is that mimicry and you're getting that cross mimicry.
Right, so you would expect viruses to disproportionately carry patterns that electromagnetically look like your own tissues because that's a good way of avoiding your immune system's ability to detect them, which of course is also then an invitation to autoimmune disorders, right?
Rheumatoid arthritis, you tell me if I've picked a wrong one, but rheumatoid arthritis And that's what autoimmune disease is.
is the immune system gets lured into fighting something that's molecularly very similar to a protein you make, and lo and behold, you end up attacking your own tissues.
- And that's what autoimmune disease is, self attack.
- Self attack, yeah. - Yeah.
And again, this spike protein, there's overlap between a lot of human proteins and the protein sequences on the spike protein.
So, it has that ability to induce increased autoimmune attack because, again, you're not making antibodies to just spike protein.
You've got to consider that this is a folded piece of protein with a bunch of different sugars.
And each time the virus mutates, the Location and the amount of sugars that attach to it are different.
So you're forming different antibodies each time.
And each time you form different antibodies, you're increasing the possibility of those binding to something that looks similar to human tissue as well.
Right.
Which actually brings us to Gerrit van den Bosch, because... I love Gerrit.
Yeah, I do too.
I don't always understand him, but the idea...
Maybe you're getting through this conversation that the evolutionary story is not ancient, right?
Yes, we have an evolutionary history that brings us here.
Every day we're living it.
We are living it and in fact at the level of immunity and pathogens that arms race is always taking place.
We're a constant battle internally.
We are a constant battle and our immune systems are so good at this battle that Generally, we just don't even know that we're being challenged and fending it off.
But if you do something moronic, like give somebody an injection that induces them to produce a single protein, right?
The point is that is Radically unlike the immunity that develops when you actually get sick with something.
When you get sick with something, it has a bunch of different motifs on its surface and the immune system learns several of them.
And so the point is, that pathogen, by altering one of those motifs, doesn't escape.
So there's no reinforcement evolutionarily.
And I don't call this one a vaccine.
It's a gene injection.
But in vaccinology, you're taking a small part of a pathogen.
Sorry.
You're taking a small part of a pathogen to replicate an entire infection.
Whereas if you get that entire infection, you have a broad response.
And so to use just one protein doesn't give you broad immunity.
No, in fact, it gives the pathogen It's a trivially easy evolutionary challenge to evade around.
Because the point is the immune system is only looking for one thing.
Which goes to the point that this whole platform is a false construct in the sense that if you're going to target just one thing every time, microevolution on a rapid scale is going to evolve around this every time.
And once again, from Pharma's perspective, that's not the worst thing that could happen, because the point is, if you don't just need a shot to become immune to the thing for life, but you're going to need a series of boosters to update you for the modern thing, which they just so happen to be triggering by inoculating people with a single viral epitope.
And what we've known since the Athenian plague, or what we knew from back to I mean, we've known for eons about natural immunity and being exposed to something and having immunity.
And Fauci, you know, in an interview back in 2018, asked about a lady that had just gotten over the flu.
Of course, she doesn't need a vaccine.
You know, natural infection is the mother of all vaccines, basically.
Yeah, I think he might have a memory disorder because he knew it at one point.
Well, it was sure convenient to not remember.
Yeah.
And again, to the tune of Billions of dollars going to pharma.
Is their best interest in the health of the patient?
Is their best interest in truly understanding immunology?
Is the best interest in understanding the long term consequence?
No, their best interest is their bottom line and their shareholders.
What our best interest is as scientists is to Observe, show evidence, hypothesize on behalf of humanity so that people hopefully become healthier and aren't harmed.
So our moral and ethical duty and obligation is to say what we see.
That sounds like some kind of malinformation to me.
It must be.
It must be.
This whole construct, it's insane to think that we're living in a world where, especially in this nation, where free speech is the fundamental principle.
That we can't just talk about ideas.
And we've lost this art of discourse.
And do you and I agree on everything?
Probably not.
Nope.
But can we have great conversations and have fun doing it?
And go, huh, we'll agree to disagree on that one, or I will go get more understanding on that aspect.
That's what all society should be.
And this whole polarization, shutting down speech on this side or shutting down speech on this side, the answer to You know, what people view as bad speech is more speech.
Engage in the dialogue.
Engage in the conversation.
Engage in the disagreement.
Learn.
One thing, I'm getting all philosophical here, but I joke that curiosity and knowledge are my drugs of choice.
And my girls, I would drive them nuts raising them because at the dinner table, I'm like, all right, time for the dad question.
They were like, oh, here he goes.
What new thing did you learn today?
It wasn't about their schoolwork.
Yeah.
It was about anything in the world.
And I don't remember where I learned this, but the moment you lose your curiosity is the moment you die.
So sadly, in our day and age, some people die at 25, but aren't buried until they're 85.
So when you stop learning and lose your curiosity, you're no longer a vibrant being.
And it goes to that safety and comfort versus that discomfort of not knowing.
And this is where this authoritarian, we know, we're the expert, this is best for you, do this, does society no good?
Because obviously question authority, trust but verify, but skepticism is healthy.
Yeah, I mean I of course resonate with that 100% but I also feel like you're under leveraging it because it's really like the way that all of the things that we are capable of came about is that we didn't do that thing you're doing now.
What you're doing is you're freezing us in place by substituting authority Ill-informed for the process by which we become informed.
Right.
Your basic point is, oh, we've arrived.
We now know.
Where does good medical advice come from?
It comes from the CDC.
How the hell do they come up with it?
You don't need to know.
Right.
It's like, really?
I don't believe that.
Well, and even here in the state of Washington, the state Senate bill just recently passed or is being considered that basically says a vaccine is whatever the FDA and the CDC ACIP committee say it is.
Like, that's not even basic science.
Right, that's not how that works.
They should replace whatever their authority is with the Oracle.
We'll go back to the classics and that's basically, unfortunately, how divination Right.
I mean, that's what it is.
And the answer is, look, no, if you like humans, if you like what we've accomplished, and you'd like us to be better over time, then the last thing you want to do is hogtie your doctors, for example, so that they can't learn to treat a new disease that shows up in their office, which they very well would have done left to their own devices if they had not been, in fact, ordered not to do it from on high.
They would have discovered all of the drugs in the existing pharmacopoeia that worked, that were safe, that were well understood because they'd been given billions of times.
They would have done that.
Would people have died?
Yes, but they would have quickly stopped dying because the fact is we actually did have stuff that worked from giving people vitamin D to prevent them from getting sick and prevent them from getting very sick to treating Even people who became very sick with drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that clearly have a very positive effect.
The number of people who would still have been vulnerable after we had gone through that natural medical process of learning how to treat this disease would have been very small.
And yes, that's sad, but it's no reason that we needed to turn the universe upside down.
I agree.
100%.
And that whole construct in that whole process is also buried the idea of informed consent.
Because sometimes your doctor may say, look, we've got nothing left for you, but we could try this.
Here's the risk, here's the benefit.
Right.
And you can then make an informed decision and say, OK, since you've got nothing left for me, I'll give it a go.
Right.
And that's kind of the right to try versus, you know, the right to try is based on experimental cancer drugs.
But at the same time, What about things that are already approved and safe that you just mentioned?
Toxicologically, the second safest drug on the planet Earth, cybermectin.
It's in the WHO's list of 10 most essential medications.
Yep.
What's the harm in allowing people to try it even if it didn't work?
The harm is minimal.
It's a cousin of a bacteria that lives in our gut.
It's the Acinetobacter family.
It's a soil bacterium from a golf course in Japan.
Yep.
And it works on numerous RNA viruses, so the expectation would be that it would be likely to work in this case.
But even if it wasn't, suppose that the only effect it had was that it reduced the likelihood of getting and suffering severely from other RNA viruses while this ostensibly very dangerous virus was circulating.
That would be positive, right?
Not as positive as if it affects this particular one.
The other thing, I mean it just makes me so mad.
Never mind that they found about a dozen mechanisms against cancer for which it works now too.
It might have reduced some cancer and people weren't getting their screenings.
There was every reason to allow people to do it.
But the other thing which told you that this was a game was that they interrupted people's ability to get it at the pharmacy.
Which implies that whatever they were saying was not compelling doctors not to prescribe it.
So if their evidence was so Certain.
Why were they having trouble convincing doctors not to prescribe it?
And the answer is, lots of doctors knew it worked.
Well, that's why a lot of us should be proud of ourselves.
I'm sure you've seen the meme.
If you ever feel discouraged, realize that a trillion dollars worth of propaganda didn't work on you.
Yeah.
And the fact that the pharmacies became complicit in the process and wouldn't distribute one of the safest drugs on the planet Earth just tells you that there was a lot of Deference to the string pulling.
Well, I'm just following orders.
I'm just following orders.
I'm just following orders.
Yeah, I hate to say I was just being the good German, but... There was a lot of that.
There was a lot of that happening.
Yeah, including hidden incentives to... And sorry to all my German friends.
I have plenty over there, so I didn't mean it in that way, just as the analogy, but...
But yeah, it was like, if they're not going to speak up, I'm not going to speak up.
Thankfully, I had a great pharmacist in my region, a compounding pharmacy, independent.
Yep.
He bucked the system.
He's like, I'm going to help patients.
That's my job.
Absolutely.
And guess what?
His business boomed.
Yeah, well, there were an awful lot of us who were grateful to have such a person ready to distribute this stuff.
I think at the end of this COVID story is the fact that amazing people have met amazing people.
We found our tribe, and we come from all political backgrounds.
It doesn't matter to us what we found as thinkers.
And what we've also found is the fact that there's still a lot of good in the world.
Oh, yeah.
And I.
Everybody goes to the movies and they understand, you know, nobody's scratching their heads over who the villain is, you know, right?
We all get it.
We know who we're supposed to be rooting for.
We know what we want them to do, right?
And we're frustrated when they're not doing it.
It's the hero's journey in almost all of it.
Right.
We all get it.
So what the hell is keeping people from joining That's really the movie we're in and it doesn't look like Hollywood made it, right?
We may be unlikely... I mean, can't you see you're on the dark side?
Right!
Can't you see and wouldn't you feel better?
Use the force, come on!
Use the force, exactly, exactly.
Alright, one more thing I want to ask you about before we wrap this up.
Your hero's journey involves you paying a very high price for standing up and
Educating those of us with ears to hear what you had to say and I very much count myself as one of those people having run into your work a number of times and every single time I did I learned something important that I didn't know and it leveled me up so I know what role you were playing over in the world of dissonance.
Do you want to tell us a little bit about what happened to you and your practice as a result of courageously standing up and educating those of us who needed to hear it?
Yeah, and thanks for the opportunity to explain this because again there's so much, the misinformation tends to come from the legacy media sources and that's frustrating because they have the bully pulpit and the voice to You've experienced this a bunch too in terms of the slander, libel, defamation, etc.
I'm a well-trained doctor, obviously years of experience, and when the pandemic was announced I was pretty doubtful even at the announcement because I had a background in immunology, virology, I had studied SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, etc.
I'm like, Oh, this is, you know, okay, who did that affect the elderly, the comorbid, etc.
So, so, and my doubts going into it.
And as things started happening, I was Went back to the papers on SARS-CoV-1, 2005, NIH.
Well, hydroxychloroquine works against SARS viruses.
10, 12 years ago, there were laboratory in vitro studies.
Ivermectin works against... I'm putting all the data together early on thinking, okay, this is not a problem.
And obviously running a lab for years, I knew we had a vitamin D deficiency problem in our populations, etc, etc.
And it was middle of winter when everything started and hit.
So I'm just putting puzzle pieces together.
And just like you've had Dr. Corey on and he's like, Oh, we figured this and this and this out pandemic over, we got this.
No, same thing.
You know, in my region, I started speaking up.
And My goal as a physician, doctor in Latin means teacher, to teach.
And so we did ramp up testing and I tried to explain to the best I could because I couldn't see every patient that came and tested.
We actually, between our lab and multiple nursing homes, tested Well, over 100,000 patients.
And I ended up with 80 employees, etc.
At that point, we were busy, and I was trying to educate the community.
And then, because I was doing so much local educating, a friend said, hey, the lieutenant governor would like you to come speak at State Capitol.
That was probably the talk you saw.
That talk went viral.
And as I've traveled the world, I've had countless people say, numerous people say, look, that told me I wasn't crazy.
Everything you said was like, oh, that's common sense.
It's common sense.
It's common sense.
Well, because of that, because I was making sense against the machine, then the media started attacking me.
Local.
And we know how much CARES Act funding went to different voices for propaganda, propagandistic purposes and whatnot.
And then I started getting these board complaints.
Well, I stepped up in the middle of the pandemic.
Again, I have years of clinical experience in addition to my years of pathology experience.
And I said, nobody's treating these patients.
What's going on here?
I couldn't treat everybody, but I stepped in and I helped where I could.
And I joined this online Telehealth service.
We were allowed to prescribe in all 50 states and treat during the pandemic, according to the PrEP Act.
So I did.
I'm like, well, my calling as a doctor is to heal.
And if no one else is going to step and do their job or be the Good Samaritan, I'm not saying no one.
There were there was a small army of dedicated people that stood up for humanity and unfortunately too few because the others were afraid in their silos.
So I did that.
And then these board complaints start coming forward.
Board complaints means what?
Boards of medicine.
These are not patient complaints.
No, that's what I was going to bring up.
So I'm licensed.
I was at one point in my career licensed in, I think, 15 states.
And then I didn't have clients in some of those states, so I let some of those lapse.
And so I think at the peak of the pandemic, I had like 11 state licenses.
Well, granted, I was allowed to prescribe in all 50 if I wanted.
And then I start getting these random complaints.
You said this in this talk, and you said this in this talk, and you said this in this talk, and I'm looking at that going, yeah, so?
I did.
It's my right to observe science and share what I'm seeing.
And then the complaint was, you said these things.
I'm like, that's not a complaint.
Right.
That's an observation.
So what I found out, there's a doctor CEO of our local health system who walked, he got called in to be the COVID czar over the pandemic, Dr. David Pate.
And I sat down with him early in the pandemic and I said, Hey, let's talk about vitamin D. And this was before the shots rolled out.
This was early in 2020.
He had no clue.
Like I said, most doctors don't understand the immune system.
Even more doctors probably don't understand the basic functions of vitamin D. I was shocked.
Then I start speaking against experimental genetic injections in humanity.
These complaints keep rolling forward.
And when I had my hearing in the state of Washington, I found out he was the major complainant.
And he induced the College of American Pathology to complain against me and the American Board of Pathology.
And he said, and join me in these complaints.
Well, 10 out of those 11 states said, look, this is free speech.
There's no patient harm, no patient complaint.
Of all the patients I've seen in my career, and especially during this COVID period, where's the patient complaint?
None.
So what this tells me is a local reporter plus a CEO of a hospital, this is no different than re-education in Maoist China and the cultural revolution saying you can say these things and you can't say those things.
And so then the insurance company out of that health system where he's the CEO cancels my biggest contract.
That was 30% of my business.
During COVID, during the first two years of COVID, I leveraged to do testing in my community.
I kept one of the local hospital systems open surgically, saved them a million dollars a day almost by keeping, because they wanted to know their patients weren't going to spread COVID to the doctor and blah, blah, blah.
That system I got along with, this other hospital system, I leveraged myself, went into debt.
I made nothing personally for two years of COVID.
Living off savings.
Paying all my employees.
Trying to serve the community.
Finally, by the third year, I was making money again.
But I spent two years putting my entire family and my entire career at risk, only to turn around and get complained against by this hospital system to have my major contract canceled and all my clients saying, until you get back on that insurance, we can't send you our biopsies and blood work anymore because their nurses don't have time to send to three or four different labs.
They love the service I was providing.
So this guy single-handedly Attacked me because of my free speech rights.
And so I had to sell my lab.
I had a great associate.
He has a new business.
He's got what I had.
He does good work.
He kind of stayed quiet during the pandemic.
That's his prerogative.
And so I basically lost a great career, but gained a world of friends and saved the people that I was morally and ethically and by oath responsible to take care of.
That's a remarkable story and horrifying one, right?
A doctor acting in good conscience, who of course turns out to be right across many different important topics, loses their capacity to provide for their family in the manner for which they trained so extensively.
It also has another weird echo.
I know that what Heather and I have experienced feels like a systematic attack on our capacity to earn.
Right?
That this is the mechanism of control that is deployed.
And the fact is it hasn't changed what you say.
It hasn't changed what we say because we're not constructed in the way that this will work.
Probably it affects our reach quite a bit.
Right.
But nonetheless, there is something cynical on the other side that looks at a doctor saying inconvenient things and says, well, the remedy for that is to make his life unlivable.
And I think it is a great testament to your character and to your resourcefulness that you have remained outspoken even through the destruction of your career.
But I also think it's a it's an absolute tragedy.
Right, you need to be in the lab doing what you're trained to do to the benefit of patients and the fact that you are collateral damage in what is at best a business scheme to sell therapies that are dangerous and don't work and to silence those who would advocate for therapies that were safe and did work, you know, that is, it's monstrous.
Thank you for that observation.
It's analogous, I think, as well to what you've described in some of your recent episodes and interviews about your experience in Panama and the border invasion and whatnot.
At what point do these big systems want just automatons and robots?
That's what they want.
You illegally come into our country and eventually get recruited to the military to be the enforcers, then who is more inclined to do what the overlord says, the government?
Same thing in medicine.
Of course they're running us out on a rail.
Same reason Galileo was thrown in a tower.
Yep.
Same reason Semmelweis was thrown in an insane asylum for trying to teach doctors about washing their hands at the Allgemeinen Krankenhaus back in Austria-Hungary back in the 1800s.
It's the same construct.
If you speak against the system, especially if you're doing something good, That costs them money because now they have control over you.
And yeah, have I lost an income?
Am I still trying to figure out what to do next?
I am.
Am I still licensed?
Yes.
Did Washington do to me what they did to Jordan Peterson?
Yeah.
In fact, in my hearing, they said, well, it sounds like you may need some re-education.
I'm like, well, thank you.
I didn't.
Thank you, Chairman Mao.
And so, I'm in the appeals court process with them because, and there will be many a lawsuit to come, and in fact, you know, we're looking at RICO violations with certain boards and commissions as well.
So, it's not the end of it all.
I don't want to spend my life in lawsuits, but I also don't want to let the bad guys win either.
No, they can't win, and you know, I think your point is well taken, which is that the Attack on capacity to earn that we feel personally is actually part of a larger plan, which is that which illegitimately controls the system and wishes to keep reaping ill-gotten gains.
Yes.
Right.
to drive out the people who stand up and say no, irrespective of the cost, leaving a system of compliant people behind.
And so what happened to medicine over the course of COVID?
Well, it got more compliant because all the people who stood up had to scramble and cobble together some other mechanism for making a living, which means the danger of viatrogenic harm went up Considerably.
Because the people who you really want to be treated by are many fewer in number.
And this is kind of a call to arms to those still stuck in the system.
It's like, hey guys, it's now or never.
Yeah, stand up.
It's now or never.
Yeah, and we're kind of at that pivotal point in societal turnings in history.
Yeah, it is.
It is very much that.
Not from a Duman Glenn point of view, just from look, it's obvious at this point.
It's just just figure out which movie you're watching and who you're rooting for.
Right.
If you were sitting in a chair watching this movie, who would you be rooting for?
You'd be rooting for Ryan Cole.
Thank you.
So join him.
Right.
I mean, it makes sense.
Please.
Now, the other thing you and I have not really talked politics and I only know a minimal amount based on what you've said.
But To me?
I think it is that point in the movie, and I think the movie is about more than medicine and pandemics.
I think the movie is about something that has infused itself into our system and is now turning every institution either feeble or, more often, paradoxical, so it works against its stated mission.
CDC is causing ill health, it's not increasing human health.
I call them the Centers for Deception and Confusion.
Yeah, that's my playful, you know.
That's good.
That's what their acronym means to me anymore.
But I look at the political landscape.
We are in a presidential election year.
Things are not good.
No, and I struggle with the I don't know how much you want me to say or what you'll cut out because... We will cut out nothing.
Okay, I'll state where I am.
Look, we have a gerontocracy.
Yeah.
And with as many sharp minds and brilliant people as we have in this nation, just like we need physicians to step up and be oath keepers to their oath of Hippocrates, We also need citizen politicians.
We need people to step into that fray that we've seen a system taken away from us because we got too complacent.
People didn't get involved.
And so this woke culture, this DEI, this ESG, everything that's happening, it's because of complacency of the people and expecting somebody else to go to the PTA meeting or expecting somebody else to be on that local board or it starts at the local level.
But now when we get up to the bigger level, And too much money is controlling Washington.
And you and I have been to Washington many times in the last couple of years, speaking to many a leader that'll listen, the true leaders, and there are a handful of true leaders.
And I don't view them as Republican or Democrat.
I view them as American patriots who believe in the Constitution, who believe in the foundational principles of this nation.
And so I may agree or disagree on a certain issue here and there, but the bigger picture is, where's the heart of what you're going to do?
Biden, we can see he's senile.
We get that.
It's an international joke.
I've traveled the world.
I've been to 17 countries in the last two years.
Beyond that, it is an affront to our democratic republic.
It's indecent.
It's elder abuse.
Well, it may be indecent to him, but it's also indecent to us.
It is, as a nation.
It makes us look like buffoons as a nation.
We are buffoons, and we are entitled to have somebody who It retains their mental faculties so that they can be called in front of Congress to answer questions.
They have to be competent to answer the phone in the middle of the night when somebody says, Mr. President, we have evidence there's been an attack.
We have five minutes to decide whether or not to respond.
We are entitled to an actual president.
Absolutely.
And that's why we have an amendment in the Constitution to remedy that.
If we had the will, and I like this, another podcaster that I've been on many a time, Steve Dace, he says, look, we're not a nation of laws.
We're a nation of political will, and we lack the political will to enforce the laws that we already have.
Something has gained control of the system such that those who should be doing that are not doing it.
So there, that's my critique of that.
Then we have Trump.
After this entire long scientific conversation we have, we can boil it down to, poison is bad for you.
Yeah.
And poison didn't save millions of people.
Yep.
A genetic injection with no long-term track history is not your best accomplishment.
Get over that.
Right.
Did I like the economy under him?
Et cetera, et cetera.
Do I like him telling stories about himself and degrees of narcissism?
I don't.
Who do I personally like?
I love Bobby Kennedy.
Do I agree with Bobby on everything?
I don't.
There are certain things I think, but he's open to conversation.
He's intellectual and he has the ability to cognate.
Yeah, he is.
And so that's where I stand.
I mean, I grew up conservative.
I voted Republican.
I voted Democrat in my lifetime.
I voted both sides.
I voted independent.
I voted wherever the issue has been strongest.
I served in the military.
I went to the Air Force Academy a lifetime ago back in the 80s.
I mean, I have a heartfelt passion for this country and the principles on which it was founded, the Constitution, etc.
And again, you know, Is Bobby the perfect person?
No.
But is he somebody who understands it better than other sides?
And is he a puppet on anybody's string?
He's not.
Yeah.
Why are they suppressing him like they've suppressed us?
They're afraid of him.
Right.
And this is not a commentary.
I'm not saying who to vote for.
That's just where I feel.
Well, you know, I'm not going to say who to vote for.
It's not mine to tell anyone that.
But I will say I don't see.
Another good option.
I certainly understand the people who are enthusiastic about Trump, but I would point out the fact that Trump cannot get past the idea that he is entitled to claim credit for the disastrous vaccine campaign.
Tells you something.
He is in no position to administer an investigation into what happened so that it can never happen again.
For accountability.
And that's what I think many are craving at this point.
Even those who were confused and convinced for a while and have come around and are now open-minded and thinking.
That degree of accountability is, I think, what a lot of us are hoping for.
But most of us don't expect, because we watch how the system's broken.
And I agree with you in that sense that he would go after the actors that perpetrated this on us.
No.
And really, I don't understand, in Trump's case, if he said, look, they misled me.
I think everybody would understand that.
That's the easy out.
That's the easy out.
Look, I have talked to people close to him and on the team, several doctors.
We were invited to give video testimony to him.
And we're originally going to go to Mar-a-Lago and we ended up, I ended up not going to that because we weren't going to get to speak with him.
I've talked to people in the cabinet and they're like, look, he won't listen to us on this.
And his sons.
No.
They're like, look, this is... They know.
Because they were the ones that reached out.
Yeah, it's a huge red flag.
It's frustrating.
To have blind spots like that as a leader, we don't need.
We can't afford it because... We need somebody to say, look, I could be right or could be wrong, but I want all the information.
Right.
And, you know, if Trump... Trump was demonized over a number of things that he said, which did not amount to the way they were portrayed.
I like the economy under him.
I like, let's say, border under him.
He did a lot of great things.
He did some very good things.
But I think this is an Achilles heel.
It is an Achilles heel, and what's more, it is the 11th hour.
It is.
And, you know, I think we are lucky that Bobby Kennedy Jr.
exists and is well positioned to understand this issue.
There are some other issues in which I disagree with him.
On the other hand, because it's the 11th hour, I don't think these things, maybe with a couple of exceptions, I think he should put aside the positions that caused him to be unhearable by so many people who would otherwise be supporters of his.
And the point is, look, here's the job for the next likely eight years.
Right.
We have to address certain things.
One, we have to address what exactly happened during the so-called pandemic.
Right.
How was that generated and what are its implications?
What has to be fixed in order for that never to happen again?
And I appreciate that Bobby understands the constitutional principles that were breached.
And in his book, he enumerates those very clearly at the beginning, in the introduction.
And to have a president and a former president both having violated constitutional principles, are we a nation of laws?
Are we a constitutional republic or not?
I think that's pretty basic.
It is fundamental and Kennedy is also, because he is encyclopedically knowledgeable about this.
He's brilliant.
He is temperamentally, I believe, very well suited to address these issues without it, even though of all people, he has as much reason to treat Some of these things personally as anyone, but he's also, um, I think he's just a patriot through and through.
That's what I like about him.
And, you know, the idea that a patriot needs to step into that office and, you know, not be vindictive, but get to the bottom of what brought us here and make, make sure that we get back on the track.
He put out a little 10 minute kind of You know, the State of the Union happened.
You and I chatted briefly.
You didn't get a chance to watch that yet.
I watched it, was very upset with it.
It was very angry.
The Republican response was oddly dystopian.
And then Bobby put out a little nine-minute State of the Union as a candidate running.
And it was like, I don't care what party you're from, but you get that feeling to your point of, there's a patriot.
There's someone who cares about this nation.
Highly competent.
Exceedingly competent.
Absolutely.
And a patriot.
And undeniably courageous.
Yep.
So anyway, yes, I do hope... So there's politics for you, and we could talk religion next.
I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Yeah, I mean, I almost don't think it is politics.
In fact, you know, I had a... It's the well-being of the nation.
Yes, it is.
It goes to, we are kind of on life support as a nation.
Yep.
Who would you call to be your doctor?
The guy that doesn't remember who he is when he comes in the room.
Right.
The guy that thinks he's the best doctor on planet or the guy that says, I'm here to do my best and save you.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I will say one other pattern I have noticed in interacting with many of the folks that you've also been interacting with is that I believe All adults aren't what I once thought they were.
All of the people that I now look at and think, well, there's a real adult.
There's somebody who, you know, has matured, is not, you know, wrapped up in themselves.
They really see the picture for what it is and they're trying, you know, they're trying to lead.
I think they all understand where we are in history and they are, as a result, looking Past their own ideological concerns.
Right.
Because it isn't that moment, right?
The difference in our ideology is tiny compared to whether or not the ship is going to remain afloat for another day.
I've said many a time, this is our 1776 moment.
Yeah, I think it really is.
It really is.
All right, well, Ryan Cole, it has been a tremendous episode.
I'm glad we finally did this, and I certainly hope that we will do it again, and there will no doubt be lots of topics on which we can spend time exploring.
